Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

Why I quit Times and Seasons

April 08th, 2009 by Adam G.

Why did I quite Times and Seasons? I was tempted to tell you that it was none of your business, by which I would have meant that I was too lazy to explain, but then I remembered I’d sent a long email to my former cobloggers a few months ago that was maybe good enough.

The context is that my former coblogger Kaimipono Wenger said something I disagreed with, implying that Church teachings on the family were tantamount to racism, and in my courteous way I gently remonstrated with him in the comments by calling him a low-down skunk, a boil on a spavined horse’s ass, and someone I wouldn’t cross the street to spit on if he were dying of thirst.

A ruckus naturally ensured behind the scenes on the blog and I ended up sending this email. Its a little out of date and I don’t know if I still stand by every single thing in it, but its good enough. Everything here is my characterization: you can take it with a grain of salt if you like.

Update: edited to remove confidences.

APOLOGIA PRO BLOGORRHEA SUA

Here’s my case. It’s mostly serious but it does include a few flippancies and irrelevancies. I realize the case would be stronger without them, but I’d rather laugh on the gallows than long-face my way to liberty. I ask you to read the whole thing before you make up your mind.

1. I cuss that what I am about to say is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

2. Call me Ishmael.

3. On April 29, 2008, KW posted about a conversation he had with his young sons. This is the “D” post. http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4525#more-4525

4. In the D post, KW told about laughing with his kids at the longstanding Church doctrine of the male priesthood. The doctrine was described as “dumb” and “discriminatory.”

5. In the comments, http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4525#comment-261306 , KW raised three questions

Why is it that women aren’t allowed to be prophet? Why is it that Blacks weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood? Why is it that same-sex couples aren’t allowed to marry in the church?

6. His answer to the first question was “its patriarchal bullshit.”

7. After I kicked up a fuss on the list, this was changed to “its patriarchal nonsense.”

8. KW did not answer the other two questions at that time.

9. In the D post thread cobloggers Matt Evans and (in one comment) Frank McIntyre, opposed KW’s characterizations of the priesthood.

10. Cobloggers Julie Smith and Ardis Parshall also participated in the comments but did not oppose KW’s characterizations of the priesthood.

11. No other cobloggers participated in the thread.

12. On the back list I asked KW to remove the D post or, failing that, for the list to vote to remove the D post.

13. KW did not remove the post.

14-15. . . . [a discussion of my former coblogger's behind-the-scene's responses to the D post]

16. I lost the vote to remove the D post by a big majority.

17-20. . . . [boring]

21. Y’alls reaction was a collective shrug, as some of you would be willing to admit.

22. Any “sport” where the entrants “perform” “routines” is not a sport?

23. It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

24. After the spectacular failure of the D post vote, I decided to resign. My wife and a few friends convinced me that I should think it over for a couple of weeks before doing anything.

25. Also, resigning would be stooping, and I never stoop. Also, the terrorists would win. So I did not immediately resign.

26. I did not tell anyone on the list that I was planning to resign. In the past cobloggers have used resignation threats to create drama and sympathy and to get their way and I have resolved not to do this.

27-29. . . . [a bunch of pointless drama. Long story short, I didn't resign pending a discussion about some new blog rules which I hoped I could influence to resolve my concerns.]

30. About this time I came across a Snarkernackle post alleging that a prominent bloggernacle blogger was also New Order Mormon who hung out at an ex-Mormon/New Order Mormon site. I followed one of the links, skimmed it, was disturbed, and sent an email to the list saying that I would have a problem if any of us cobloggers were “Cafeteria Mormon,” the individual at the link.

31. Kaimipono Wenger told me it was him.

32. . . .

33. Given a lack of time, and a comment from someone I consulted on the matter, I figured I’d misread the link and dropped the subject. My intention was to read the Cafeteria Mormon’s postings at some later point when I had the chance. But I didn’t get around to it until very recently.

34. It is better to crawl a mile on broken glass then to crawl it twain.

35. My Martian Rose presentation was awesome, FYI. Check out the sidebar link to a photo. It’s the only one where I don’t look like Paul Potts’ body double.

36. In June we got into another long discussion concerning a posted remark that “you probably do not have to accept Mormonism and its ordinances in this life or the next for Christ to save you and perhaps for God to exalt you.”

37-39. . . . [description of the discussions]

40. Given the opportunity presented by this new discussion, I pushed aggressively for some resolution to address my concerns. . . . I felt at the time that if I had not been pushing hard nothing would have been done. After reviewing the relevant comments threads, I still feel that way.

41. I caught a lot of flack in the resulting discussion. I was accused of being “orthodoxy police,” of trying to “exercise a heckler’s veto,” of “depicting Jehovah as a pagan storm god,” and of being a hockey-style “doctrinal enforcer.” [Ed. note--yeah, baby. Also, it should be noted that these were not universal concerns. I leave them up not because they were representative, but because they were awesome. If you're going to be argumentative, be it in style].

42. We eventually got what I thought was a very good bolog norm against, among other things, using T&S as a platform for criticism. But I was ultimately dismayed to discover that the norm was as much aimed at me as at anyone else. Apparently some of my cobloggers thought I shouldn’t be allowed to post or link much on gay marriage politics or abortion.

43. I thought and still think that this was unjust and uncalled for, but decided to stomach it in the interests of the blog. A new norm, I thought, would go over better if it had more than one apparent target.

44. I am bearded like a pard. I am also full of strange oaths. See #1.

45. I wanted to make sure the D post was unacceptable under the new norm. A blog where it was acceptable was a blog from which I would resign.

46-61. . . . [More backlist debate. I eventually let the matter drop after receiving some private assurances]

. . . . [Pointless, tedious drama about the ratio of out pro- Prop. 8 posts to our anti- Prop. 8 posts]

62. Clouds are pretty.

63. Three days ago I remembered that I had been planning to look a little more at KW’s “Cafeteria Mormon” links. I did a quick search at the site and was very disturbed by what I saw.

64. Two days ago I put up a critical post on a recent decision holding that a fertility doctor was required to help impregnate a lesbian woman over the doctor’s religious objections. http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4733#more-4733

65. In the comments Julie Smith hypothesized a comparison between race discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. ECS suggested that opposition to same-sex marriage was tantamount to opposition to “miscegenation.” http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4733#comment-272263

66. I said it was “wicked and offensive” to make that equation (later in the day, but I believe before we had our blog contretemps, I struck out wicked and replaced it with wrong). I also indicated that I would remove further attempts to equate the Church’s ecclesiastical/moral view on non-traditional sexual relations with racism. In my mind the equation is little more than name-calling and is wholly inappropriate coming from church members.

67. Despite my statement that further comments on those lines were not welcome, KW put up a defense of ECS’ comment. He said that “the comparison was an apt one for many observers,” compared the fertility doctor to a Jim Crow doctor, and said that relying on revelation wasn’t enough because our prophets and apostles had also been Jim Crow supporters.

68. I moderated the comment and notified KW.

69. He then posted a series of arguments for and against comparing the Church’s moral stand with racism. The arguments he offered “against” were weak and, unlike with the “for” arguments, he provided counterarguments. For instance, he said that the alleged empirical bases for distinguishing sexual morality from racism were of the kind that a prior T&S post had tried to explode. http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4734#more-4734

70. I lost my temper and said things I regret, though in degree, not in kind. For instance, I wish I had said “wrong and offensive” instead of “wicked and vile” and at Neil Penzo’s urging I updated that comment to include an apology for the language used.

71-72. . . . [More back list drama]

73. That same day I took a more in-depth look at KW’s postings as “Cafeteria Mormon” at the ex-Mormon/DAMU site www.thefoyer.org

74. A cafeteria Mormon is one who picks and chooses among Church doctrines, revelations, and practices without a feeling of guilt or “Lord, help thou mine unbelief.”

75. The purpose of www.thefoyer.org is to “provide a place for open, honest, robust discussion on Mormonism from the viewpoint of disaffected Mormons and post-Mormons.” Reading the discussions there is not pleasant.

76. I set down to read KW’s postings in detail. http://www.thefoyer.org/search.php This moderated the very negative impression I had from the day before .

77. The impression that emerged after wading through it all was of a man who did not believe in Mormonism but thought there was a fair amount of good in it and was dedicated to keeping his family together by going to church without allowing his children to be contaminated by the bad, Mormon doctrines and practices.

78. In short, KW aka “Cafeteria Mormon” is a New Order Mormon.

79. A New Order Mormon is one who no longer believes most (or all) of the specific dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church but who wants to maintain membership. See, for instance, the definition of the New Order Mormon “middle way” here — http://www.newordermormon.org/ — and KW’s defense of his “middle way”here — http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=56782#56782.

80. As I said, I came away with a more favorable impression than the one I went in with. KW spent a lot of time defending Mormons and the Church on various points where he thought the denizens of the site had gone too far.

81. I do not now, nor have I ever, had a dog named Checkers.

82. Nonetheless, there were several KW/Cafeteria Mormon postings that were very disturbing.

83. In this post, KW agreed that the Church’s commandments on sex should be ignored because Church leaders are not young and virile. http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=56422#56422

84. In this post, KW encouraged a man who wanted to “de-program” his kids with “anti-FHEs”. http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=50456#50456

85. In this post, KW encouraged a man who doesn’t believe in the gospel but had been called to be first counselor in the bishopric. KW advised him to accept the calling and gave him suggestions about how he could keep people from finding out that he didn’t believe in any of it. These included acting as if any questions about his faith were judgmentalism and urging the questioners to be more loving and civil. “You can’t go wrong if you take every opening to be judgmental.” http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=56216#56216

http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?t=4049&highlight=judgmental

86. In this post KW describes questions about Book of Mormon historicity as questions about “what a bunch of people who didn’t really exist did or didn’t say to each other 2000 years ago.” http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=56742#56742

87. In this post KW acknowledged that : “it’s also clear that more orthodox Mormons would not consider me one of them; and that, if they knew my particular belief configuration, they might try to expel me from the community,” http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?p=48123#48123

88. In this post KW describes his cafeteria, middle-way, New Order Mormon approach to the Church:

–”Mormonism is not a sole conduit to God. And I see other, very serious problems in the faith. There are serious problems with certain Mormon truth claims. And there are both personal and structural deficiencies in the community, both at the local and global levels.”

–” there’s a lot to reject. The problematic ideas about women’s roles, gender essentialism, Women who Know, gender imbalances in the temple — that whole ball of wax.”

–” The emphasis that only one right type of family is acceptable, and the rejection of others — particularly gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgendered — who do not fit that bill.”

–” I’m happy to draw from other religion traditions, from . . . Wicca. And I look to various interpretational aids like Fowler’s Stages of Faith.” Kaimi has linked several times a goddess-pagan-feminist-Mormon blog on the sidebar.

http://www.thefoyer.org/viewtopic.php?t=3589

. . . . [harrumphing and my claims of disproportionate treatment]

Our blog has recently been much more concerned with angry reactions to what looks like apostasy than with apostasy itself.

My recent reaction was angry and was excessively angry. I admit this and I apologize. However, if the blog continues in the course it is on, I will continue to react the same way, if not in the same degree. Our blog cannot hold itself out as a faithful Mormon blog while allowing bloggers to chip away at Church policies, especially if those bloggers do not have testimonies.

I have been with this blog since the beginning. I have put in a lot of time running it, posting, commenting, and keeping it going. This is where I announced the death of my daughter. This project means a lot to me. But I’m not willing to keep participating at any price.

. . . .[quixotic calls for dramatic action]

Comments (204)
Filed under: Deseret Review | Tags: , , , ,
April 08th, 2009 09:41:05
204 comments

Eric Nielson
April 8, 2009

Wow.

Best wishes, Adam. Sounds like a lot to go through. I thought we had some drama at Blogger of Jared. That was nothing.


Adam G.
April 8, 2009

In fairness to my former cobloggers, it definitely takes two to have drama. I have a sneaking suspicion that things have been calmer around there since I left a couple of weeks back.


TT
April 8, 2009

Hooray!

[...] of the blog has now resigned, and opened shop over at Junior Gaymede. Most troubling, however, is his post relating why he has resigned from Times and Seasons. It’s only one side of the story; but, on [...]


Ivan Wolfe
April 8, 2009

Well, it looks like you made the right decision for you. It’s a shame drama like this happens, but that’s inevitable when humans interact.

Good luck with this blog and whatever else you have planned!


Ryan Bell
April 8, 2009

Frankly, Adam, I think this raises some major questions about Times and Seasons. I respect most of those involved there, and I am certainly not in any position to question anyone’s faithfulness. But you are exactly right that there is some non-trivial duplicity involved in proceeding as a faithful Mormon blog for and by faithful Mormons if some in their ranks hold strong, unapologetic doubts about core doctrines of the Church.

I do take this with a grain of salt as being exclusively your perspective. But if it is true that the T&S collective is fine with including permabloggers with explicit, obvious axes to grind against the church, then that blog instantly becomes far, far less interesting to me.

I hope we can expect a clarifying statement from T&S in the future. It’s just not that appealing to go there if I don’t know that I’m getting the thoughts of people whose core beliefs in the church are somewhat stable and predictable.

Congrats on a new blog. I look forward to reading.


Guy Murray
April 8, 2009

I’m assuming the original D post no longer exists? Interesting story, Adam G. Best of luck to you.


Carol F.
April 8, 2009

From this, T&S sounds like they are somewhere between tolerance and embrace. The mystery is why you held on so long! I have often appreciated your comments and needed courage. “Flaming” by many in the comments of the Bloggernacle has kept me from participating much in the last few years. If you have learned anything from the drama and can help keep the flaming down, I will love visiting your new blog.


Carol F.
April 8, 2009

From your explanation, T&S sounds like they are somewhere between tolerance and embrace. The mystery is why you held on so long! I have often appreciated your comments and needed courage. “Flaming” by many in the comments of the Bloggernacle has kept me from participating much in the last few years. If you have learned anything from the drama and can help keep the flaming down, I will love visiting your new blog.


Adam G.
April 8, 2009

In the nature of things, my former cobloggers probably aren’t going to be in a position to respond to this publicly. So please remember that what you are reading is a one-sided presentation. Blogs probably aren’t important enough to be worth getting much indignant over.


Bridget Jack Meyers
April 8, 2009

Wow. And I thought World of Warcraft guild drama was bad.

Best of luck to you on your new blog, Adam, and best of luck to T&S in sorting all this out.


John Mansfield
April 8, 2009

We don’t have the whole story, but we have more than just your telling of it. Much of it has transpired in public view, and your telling is consistent with that.


Janet
April 8, 2009

Absent KW’s version, this seems a bit lacking . . . but hey, it’s your blog.

And dang, Adam, in all the T&S drama over the past few years I’d forgotten how durned *funny* you can be when you want. Indeed, clouds are pretty and *Moby Dick* is a fine book.

I hereby offer the this blogwarming gift in a spirit of good luck to you in your new endeavors. Oh, no I don’t. Stupid format won’t let me paste in clip-art of a houseplant. Consider Saussure: “houseplant.”


Adam G.
April 8, 2009

Janet,
you may wish to look at the wager posts a little bit more down the page. If you then wish to take back your houseplant, well, I’ll understand.


a little bird
April 8, 2009

One might quibble with some of Mr. G’s characterizations in, say, 82-88. The Foyer posts are available; folks can check for themselves.

[Editor: Shh! I included links to the Foyer posts because I was hoping to hide them.]


MCQ
April 8, 2009

I’ve never been a big fan of T&S, but I’m sorry to see you go. You were one of the better parts of that place. Good luck, and I’ll enjoy checking in on you.


Bloggernacle Correlation
April 8, 2009

There. Are. No. Words….

I was going to correlate Wilifred’s…


kevinf
April 8, 2009

Seriously, best wishes for the new blog. I will read it from time to time. You were always entertaining, even when I disagreed with you, because I felt you were sincere. Scary, sometimes, but sincere.


Ray
April 8, 2009

I’m disappointed that you felt you had to leave T&S, but I wish you the best in this endeavor. I also will miss your “Sweetness of Mormon Life” posts.


Janet
April 8, 2009

You may keep your houseplant with all good wishes, Adam, and thank the heavens you weren’t asked to read a much more disturbing thread. I am, after all, a hair-free feminist. And I would be even if disease did not make it so. Itchiness = badness.

I hope you cross-post the “sweetness of Mormon life” posts at T&S.


gimperville
April 8, 2009

Hilarious that you tagged this post with “dignified exit”. Or was that not meant to be as ironic as it is?


Eric Soderlund
April 8, 2009

Adam,

When KW told you that he was posting as Cafeteria Mormon, did he give you permission to disclose that fact to the world on your blog? To publicly identify someone who uses a pseudonym (for reasons that ought to be obvious) without their consent, it seems to me, is ethically highly questionable. I think you owe KW an apology for that.

Also, I have been a moderator at the Further Light and Knowledge (www.thefoyer.org) discussion board for almost three years. I find the discussions there to be quite pleasant some of the time. Other times the discussions are informative, interesting, sometimes combative, energetic, humorous, sardonic, occasionally cathartic, supportive, or bittersweet. It runs the gamut, really. I respectfully disagree with your generalization that the discussions there are unpleasant. The ideas discussed there certainly take people who might be accustomed to a correlated conformity out of their comfort zone–I’ll grant you that.


Geoff B
April 8, 2009

Adam, I am totally clueless about all of this drama, but I wish you well in your new blogging venture. I will say this: it is very apparent to me that KW and others share a very different view of the purpose of blogging from me and (I’m guessing) you. In short, my personal belief is that the purpose of blogging should be to build up and support the Lord’s church and help people with their testimonies (and occasionally express contentious political viewpoints to get it out of your system). My impression (and I speak only for myself) is that KW’s purpose is to change the Church into his vision of what it should be. It surprises me not at all to see KW spending his time on a “Cafeteria Mormon” board.

My impressions are based on many years of reading KW’s posts and comments. I wish him well and hope he can correct himself before it is too late, but I am not surprised that you found it impossible to continue in such an environment.


ECS
April 8, 2009

For the record, I wasn’t offended in the slightest at being called “wicked”. I took it as a compliment!

I’m a bit taken aback, however, by the rancor my comment provoked behind the scenes at T&S. I had no idea.


Kaimi
April 8, 2009

Blog drama is all well and good, but really, we need to find a way to tie this all to gay marriage.

For instance: Adam left the blog because I asked him to marry me.

There, isn’t that better?


mfranti
April 8, 2009

i’m disappointed that you felt it was your place to disclose KW’s personal affairs.

i’m sorry that you don’t see it that way.

good luck with your new blog.


Paul
April 8, 2009

Having spousal cobloggers is a conflict of interest?


Bookslinger
April 8, 2009

Adam, you take all this Internet stuff too seriously. Were you older and more experienced in things ‘net, I’d say you failed to learn from history. This story has played out many times and in many places, online and off. The “club” evolves from the vision of its founders, and one of the charter members gets in a huff, righteously or not. (Your huff was righteous, IMO.)

I understand and support your thesis that NOMs don’t fill the bill as perma-bloggers under T&S’s raison d’etre.

But all this “Look at what he wrote!” should have stayed behind the scenes to the people for whom it mattered, or in your opinion, for whom it should have mattered.

I picked up on Kaimi’s NOM-ishness a while back. And you’re right in that it is a bit insidious for a perma-blogger on a supposedly “pro church” blog to hide his NOM-ishness, because when some comments come out of such an one, they can be stealthily “faith dampening” to readers who don’t know the overall standpoint/viewpoint of the speaker. They give the impression that one can be a “full” or “orthodox” or “mainstream” believer and hold such an opinion, when in fact that may not be true. This can be damaging to recent converts or young adults.

I had the same uneasiness in my gut reading some of John Dehlin’s stuff, and had to come right out and ask him to state where he stood.

I would have been more comfortable with you publicly saying “I disagreed with the majority of other permabloggers on the overall direction and mission of T&S (and am therefore devoting my blogging time to my own blog, etc.)

I use an alias for blogging, and I don’t volunteer all my back-story on every blog I visit, either. And therefore if KW wants to keep his NOM-persona separate and use a different handle on another blog, that’s fine.

I think your disagreement with the other permas at T&S over whether KW should have resigned or been voted out of T&S, or if he should have “outed” himself as a NOM/cafeteria on T&S, should have stayed on the back list.

I agree with you that it “should” matter if all T&S permas are fully-believing faithful members, as long as T&S advertises itself that way. Otherwise, they, as a group blog, need to disclose the spectrum of belief as does MormonMatters.org. Those who publish faith-dampening things at Mormon Matters are at least honest about it.

I don’t think BCC discloses their spectrum of belief sufficiently, and that’s one reason I don’t like to follow that blog, they are stealthily faith-dampening.


skl
April 8, 2009

Kaimi, your response is great. Under the circumstances, I have to hand it to you — you are a class act. Funny and gracile. Well-done man. Not that it takes a lot to outclass G, but that wasn’t even close:-).


Steve Evans
April 8, 2009

“stealthily faith-dampening”??? Bookslinger, are you even a Mormon?


Steve Evans
April 8, 2009

I ask the question because if you were a Mormon, and had the gift of the Holy Ghost, you would have recognized the Spirit at work in a number of posts even this past week: live summaries and testimonies of General Conference and the press conference with Elder Andersen, a moving tribute to the Saints in Lagos, Nigeria, and in-depth analysis of talks of the apostles. It’s clear you are completely oblivious as to BCC’s content.

It’s clear you like to judge the worthiness of others, but I recommend you do so based on truthful perceptions rather than snap judgments. Our spectrum of belief speaks for itself.


Bookslinger
April 8, 2009

Steve, I stopped reading BCC a while back. Last I checked, it had some faith-promoting stuff, and it also had faith-dampening stuff too, stealthy and otherwise.

I apologize for implying it was entirely faith-dampening.

I would also disagree that BCC’s “spectrum of belief speaks for itself.” No way, Jose.

The only judgements of worthiness I make in this matter are what I judge worthy for me to read. I read some blogs, and not others. I read some bloggers and not others. It’s my time, so I get to make that decision. And the decision is…. I’m a much bigger fan of T&S than BCC. I’ll even (metaphorically bloggernacly speaking) worship at the feet of Ardis, Julie, and Wilfried.

And, to answer your question, am I Mormon? To paraphrase a famous EX-lawyer, that depends on what your definition of “Mormon” is? :-) To make it simple, my membership status is ex-member. What’s it to ya?


MikeInWeHo
April 8, 2009

Hey Adam,

Best wishes for success here at your new blog. I appreciated our occasional interaction over at T&S. While we disagree on pretty much everything, I always appreciated your sense of humor and lack of rancor. Maybe I’ll pop in here from time to time just to see what’s up.


MikeInWeHo
April 8, 2009

Bookslinger is an ex-member??!! WOW. Now that comes as a surprise.


Tracy M
April 8, 2009

I so stinking SICK of the broad brush some folks use to paint those of us who write for BCC. I don’t know what it was like before, but for the 2 1/2 years I’ve been writing there, I have seen very little that could be considered faith-dampening. And yet, this urban legend persists.

Last year, I made it to the Temple for the first time, aided grandly by the faith of my co-bloggers. Play that on your fiddle…


Aaron Brown
April 9, 2009

I’ve never met Adam , but I have met Kaimi. I always had this suspicion they were the same person. Now I’m sure of it.

AB


Ben Pratt
April 9, 2009

I completely understand your decision, especially considering “Junior Ganymede” is an anagram for “Ninja Merged You,” or more to the point, “Injure Gay Demon.”


Bookslinger
April 9, 2009

Steve, since comments were closed on the T&S thread, I wanted to give you kudos on one observation you made there:

“… awkward and boisterous declarations of orthodoxy at the expense of others. It’s lamentable not because declarations of faith are lamentable, but because here they are not naturally emerging as testimonies ought,… ”

You evoked memories of passages from “Catch 22″ where the soldiers/airmen had to recite a loyalty oath several times a day, even at the dinner table, because no one wanted to even pass the salt to a disloyal person.

I think I get your point, even if you’re engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

But the bloggernacle is not (or at least should not be, IMO) a contest on a playing field to see who gets the most spectators. People will just go where they feel comfortable. It’s a social thing, and people are naturally going to talk about what makes them comfortable and what makes them uncomfortable. Eventually people vote with their virtual feet.

Adam has a point, and he’s admitted he over-reacted (in degree at least) to the issue. I’ve had similar gut-feelings and have mostly kept silent about it until now.

In the big picture, I think this is part of the natural evolution of church-related blogging. This issue is a “growing pain” that is to be expected. And granted, Adam could (or should) have handled it with more diplomacy. Apparently, it was hard for him to let T&S evolve outside of the vision he had for it. When you’re one of the founders or charter-members of something, it can hurt when the majority takes it in a direction you don’t agree with.

But I don’t see it as much of a judgement by Adam of a person, as it was a judgement by Adam of what Adam wanted for T&S.

Once Adam was over-ruled, then it was his decision (again another “judgement”) as to whether T&S had moved/evolved past the point where he wanted to be identified with it.

Yeah, it was gauche to out a co-blogger like that. (If he were to delete this entire thread and the one on T&S, I’d support it.) And having decided to part ways, he didn’t really have grounds to do that. That’s something like an ex-employee (or soon to be ex-employee) revealing his employer’s dirty laundry to all the customers.

Having and tolerating a spectrum of belief is not the issue. I think it’s more about where a co-blogger stands in relation to where the blog administration says that they stand as a group. I don’t follow MormonMatters.org currently, but I respect them that they at least declare openly on one of their admin pages that their co-bloggers are at various
places on the belief spectrum.


Ray
April 9, 2009

Fwiw, I just want to second Tracy M’s comment. There are “faith-dampening” comments on BCC, but the blatantly obnoxious ones are moderated quite quickly. There are “faith-focused” comments on BCC, and the blatantly obnoxious ones are moderated quite quickly. I’m trying to think of BCC permas whom I would classify as something other than “sincerely faithful” – and none are coming to mind.

I enjoy the back and forth at Mormon Matters with people whose views are radically different than mine, but when I link to an astounding post on my own blog twice a week the ones I link are “disproportionately” from three sources:

1) Keepapitchinin – ’cause Ardis is . . . Ardis;

2) Andrew Ainsworth – ’cause Andrew is . . . Andrew;

3) BCC – ’cause there simply are so many jaw-dropping posts there.

I link to posts from lots of sources, and my blog is as “faithful” as it gets, so the disproportionate number of posts I link from BCC says as well as I can say it how highly I esteem most of the permas there and what they write.


Justmeherenow
April 9, 2009

MikeInWestHollywood: Bookslinger’s blogging-about-his-sharing-of-the-the-BoM-with-people was quoted (and/or linked to or something) by Elder Ballard, I believe(?).

Anyway, he’s written about his once having gone inactive due to some stumbling block to his testimony in his past, at which point he asked for his name to be removed. Or something. (I forget.) For which I think he deserves kudos for at least not being wishy washy. But perhaps he’s considering being rebaptised?


dp
April 9, 2009

I was quite saddened to read of this whole mess with T&S, but applaud you Adam for sticking up for what you felt was right, even when in the apparent minority.

I long ago decided to stop reading T&S – a point that was actually the subject of a post at http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2004/01/ts-has-been-excommunicated/ (I’m DP from the former http://www.doctrinal.net).

Keep up the always entertaining writing – I look forward to your future posts.


Latter-day Guy
April 9, 2009

I always though T&S was the squeaky clean option to BCC’s lurid apostasy. Who knew T&S had such sordid drama going on behind the scenes!? ;-) Best of luck with this blog, Adam, et al.


Adam G.
April 9, 2009

I completely understand your decision, especially considering “Junior Ganymede” is an anagram for “Ninja Merged You,” or more to the point, “Injure Gay Demon.”

I hope those urls are still available.


Nat Whilk
April 9, 2009

Geoff B:

Your attitude with respect to the 2009 outing of Kaimi Wenger seems oddly out of step with your attitude with respect to the 2006 outing of Nick Literski (when you were deleting posts from Millennial Star right-and-left that revealed Nick’s heterodoxy).

Is this a sign of growth on your part or merely a random oscillation?


Nat Whilk
April 9, 2009

Steve Evans wrote: “I ask the question because if you were a Mormon, and had the gift of the Holy Ghost, you would have recognized . . .”

Classic, just classic. If someone tried using rhetoric like that on BCC about one of Steve’s chums, he’d call them on the carpet so quickly it’d make their head spin.


WMP
April 9, 2009

I look forward to looking in on you, Adam.

(I’ve also decided that it’s almost impossible to describe the ‘nacle to people. I barely understand it myself.)


Nate
April 9, 2009

“For the record, I wasn’t offended in the slightest at being called “wicked”. I took it as a compliment!”

That is because you are wicked


Brian Duffin
April 9, 2009

I have known Kaimi and his wife since the early 90′s, where we both attended BYU-Arizona (Mesa Community College). Kaimi and I both belonged to MCC’s “electronic forum”, where I moderated the LDS discussion group after a hostile takeover (the previous moderator tried to use quotes by Brigham Young to ban all frivolity, drivel and light-minded conversation–not cool, at all!).

Kaimi and I both served (at different times) as Youth Guides at the Mesa Arizona Temple Visitor’s Center before our missions.

Kaimi and I played pool, ping pong and volleyball at the Institute of Religion.

Kaimi and I once hunted Snarkers. True story!

Kaimi and I both attended the same bloggersnacker and broke bread together at Geoff J’s house in the booming metropolis of Queen Creek, Arizona. Kaimi likes good cheese, for crying out loud!!

Anyhow, what is my point in reciting all of this? In spite of what his religious beliefs may or may not be, I know Kaimi to be a wonderful person and all around good guy. I may not always (or ever) agree with his religious views, but I will always count him as someone I considered and still consider to be a friend.

Wherever your quest for truth takes you Kaimi, I hope you find peace, joy and happiness.


John C.
April 9, 2009

Bookslinger,
I have great respect for what you do and I find your personal journey (what I know of it inspiring). Unfortunately, you don’t know anything about BCC, as you casually admit. I respectfully request that you shut your pie hole unless you can point to specific instances of what you snidely insinuate.


TStevens
April 9, 2009

Say what you want about BCC, but I recently used information garnered from them to turn my kids into conference addicts. It only took 30 seconds and I have had my 7 & 8 year old begging to watch conference everyday this week. If that is not faith promoting I don’t know what is.


Steve Evans
April 9, 2009

Nat Whilk, you are dead on. I’ve been thinking about that remark of mine to Bookslinger, and I deeply regret saying that to him. Bookslinger (and everyone), please accept my apology. It was a pompous and rude thing to say, and I was wrong to say it, even if I do think Bookslinger’s views of BCC are wrong.


Rameumptom
April 9, 2009

Adam, it will be good you are still blogging. Your new list is in my Google reading list.
While I enjoy many of the T&S bloggers, and I believe in a wide view for discussion, I also believe that if one’s mind is too open, his brains will fall out. Perhaps this is one time when poor decisions were made in the name of allowing all viewpoints.
Sadly, though, we do need to determine the difference between a NOM and a true Mormon. There can be disagreements between true Mormons. But true Mormons would not actively and adamantly attack the Brethren, as if they were the KKK.
After 20 years of LDS internet groups (I was on Bill Hamblin’s Morm-Ant in the cyber-pre-history), and seeing melt downs many times, it isn’t surprising that T&S would have one. All I can wonder is what would Joseph Smith think about allowing such anti-LDS writings to be on what claims to be a pro-Mormon site?


SC Taysom
April 9, 2009

He would probably smash his computer and scatter the bits of the keyboard in the street.


Adam G.
April 9, 2009

He would probably accuse us of being adulterers or call us on missions to England.


Mogollon Monster
April 9, 2009

Yeeaahrgggh-ah-ah-ah-arghghg


Travis
April 9, 2009

You have exited entirely without gold. And you write puissantly.

[Edited for appositeness]


pk
April 9, 2009

Adam,

And you made fun of the name of my blog.

(Shakes head.)


Bookslinger
April 9, 2009

Tracy M, Your comment has caused me to realize that my public comment here (and on the thread at T&S), especially the part of mentioning other blogs, was inappropriate. I’m sorry. I now regret posting those. Thank-you for the rebuke.

Steve Evans: Thank you for your comment that helped prepare me to receive Tracy’s.

John C: You’re right too, I was wrong to make a throw-away public comment like that. I regret it.

I apologize to all for getting caught up in a spirit of negativity and contention and contributing to it.

(Steve Evans, Tracy M, John C: you can find my email addy on my side bar if you want further information/clarification/apologies.)


John C.
April 9, 2009

It’s all good, Bookslinger. We’re cool (or, at least, you are).


Tracy M
April 9, 2009

Thank you Bookslinger. I appreciate your remarks. No furthur apologies are needed. I know you provide an important service in your mission. And who else has ever been mentioned by a GA in a talk? :)


Adam G.
April 10, 2009

If you are too benighted to be in instant awe of our blog name, you are more to be pitied than censured.


annegb
April 10, 2009

I agree with much of what you said Kaimi said, Adam. It doesn’t make the First Vision any less valid or the Book of Mormon any less true to say that we’ve wandered from Christianity expressed in kindness and tolerance. There’s a big line between tolerance and acceptance. I know I know, we first tolerate, then we accept then we embrace. But we’ve become so careful as a people that we’ve become cold hearted and judgemental and eschew the values that Christ teaches. That said, I totally respect your right to take a stand. I wish you’d taken it within T&S because dissent is always a good thing in my opinion.

I’ve never been insulted by your posts and I love you still; we’ve shared too much to break that bond; but as far as what Kaimi said, the emporer (however you spell it) has no clothes on and somebody needs to say it.


pk
April 10, 2009

If you are too benighted to be in instant awe of our blog name, you are more to be pitied than censured.

Oh, no Adam—Indeed, I find the name instantly and fully awe-full.

The muse of nomenclature smiles at you.


Adam G.
April 10, 2009

Telling someone who thinks the Church is false to go ahead and become part of a bishopric because you think they can do some good in the teaching tolerance department is like encouraging someone to have an affair because you think it will be a good opportunity for folks to exercise forgiveness and charity.

In a word, dead wrong.


pk
April 10, 2009

Oops, I meant “on.” The muse of nomenclature smiles on you.


Adam G.
April 10, 2009

She smiles *in* me.


John C.
April 10, 2009

“She smiles *in* me.”

What, like an Alien? You need to be more careful around those facehuggers, Adam.


Adam G.
April 10, 2009

What can I do? If the divine Muse picks you as an avatar, you don’t get a say in the matter.


paula
April 10, 2009

Junior Ganymede seems an odd choice of a name for a blog for someone as opposed to homosexuality as Adam seems to be… or perhaps he hasn’t researched the story thoroughly?

“Quitting” at Times and Seasons, then continuing to post there while having comments on this site…. not as tacky as the resignation post, but still not a very high class act overall.


Adam G.
April 10, 2009

Its like the John Birch Society, Paula. We have chosen the name in honor of this first known victim of the Bearded Homosexualist World Conspiracy.


Steve EM
April 10, 2009

AG, you banned me at T&S. At this new site, I assume you’ll just edit my comments for your own amusement instead.

I heart Generalissimo Franco.


Bertie Wooster
April 10, 2009

Paula, try researching “Junior Ganymede,” dash it. It’s quite the respectable establishment.


Ray
April 10, 2009

Thanks, a lot, “Bertie” – for spoiling it. *grin*

I liked the misunderstanding of the title that was confusing so many people – and I think the title is amazing, considering what generated the announcement of this blog.


Paula
April 11, 2009

I suppose it depends on your interpretation of the joke, or how many levels there are to the meaning…


Juliann
April 11, 2009

Congratulations on the new blog! I like it.


Darlene
April 13, 2009

I’m so glad there is one person out there, at least, who wants to make a stand for a forum that remains entirely faithful. We have no need for more Sunstones.


Hellmut
April 19, 2009

I understand that people are passionate about religion but wouldn’t it be nice if we could tolerate differences with regard to metaphysical faith?

What really matters is how we treat our neighbors and that we adhere to the golden rule.

When metaphysics gets in the way of neighborliness, that’s probably a sign of decay and corruption of the gospel.

If we can’t be a community that’s based on a shared commitment to neighborliness but requires dogmatic obedience, then we are insecure in our faith indeed.

Insecurity is probably the key concept to most of the anxieties of Internet Mormonism. I include myself in that respect.


Adam G.
April 20, 2009

What really matters is how we treat our neighbors and that we adhere to the golden rule

Just another dogma.


Bloggernacle Snarker
June 2, 2009

Wow, Adam, sorry I am so late to the party, but I have been ignoring the Bloggernacle for a long time. Someone brought this to my attention today, and I have to say I am pleased that we could help enlighten you as to Kaimi’s true nature. I am also pleased to see that all of the allegations of back-channel contention that Snarkernacle leveled at T&S ended up being accurate. Alas, the only thing that displeases me is you didnt work in a comment about the excellency of vests into your post above. Thanks for the fun read, my lunch tasted a little better because of it.


Agellius
June 2, 2009

Wow, what a trip.

I know you know that I sympathize with your reasons for leaving, and with your abhorrence of the idea of encouraging someone without a testimony to become a bishop.

Kind of funny though, because I sort of thought of T&S as a more “fair & balanced” version of By Comment Consent.

Anyway T&S lost its best contributor. You think and write rings around all those guys.


Adam G.
June 3, 2009

I don’t know what the Catholic version of “a testimony” would be. But while I have some sympathy with the story by maybe Unamuno about the ordained priest who lost his faith but kept soldiering on, I wouldn’t have much sympathy with someone who lost their Catholic belief but decided to get ordained anyway. That’s a fundamentally false thing to do.


Kaimi
June 3, 2009

It’s Unamuno, yes — San Manuel Bueno, Martir. A great story; an online copy of the text is at http://www.ciudadseva.com/textos/novela/sanmanu.htm . (I recommend Abel Sanchez and Unamunos novelas examplares as well.)

I disagree on the point in question, but we already knew that. Let’s be clear on facts, though. This fellow was being called as a bishopric counselor (not bishop). This was after (by his own very early admission on the thread) he had been attending church only sporadically for many months, and hadn’t held a temple recommend for several years.

Now, you do the math. It seems pretty clear that this was a case of calling intended as reactivation tool. (Not so unusual for the position of bishopric counselor; I’ve been in two wards in the past decade where semi-active members were called into the bishopric as a prod.) Things like activity level are public knowledge. No wool is being pulled over anyone’s eyes here. This is calling as reactivation, plain and simple.

And really, who are we to disagree with the local leaders’ decision? I mean, if you really want to argue that the fellow’s stake president was uninspired in making the calling, sure, go ahead. But remember, the stake president is (a) the one who has known the fellow for however-many years, (b) who knows his TR status and his activity level, (c) who has stewardship over him, (d) who has presumably prayed about the matter, and (e) who then calls him as a Bishopric counselor.

We’re just the peanut gallery. Are you really so sure that your judgment after having read a quick snippet online is better than that of the fellow’s own priesthood leaders?

(And depending on one’s theology of callings and inspiration, this could get very dicey. Don’t callings come, at least in some degree, from God? At what point do you effectively start saying, “God messed up on this decision”?)

I do find it ironic that telling someone, “take the calling you were given” is evidence of my own heterodoxy.


Adam G.
June 4, 2009

Now, now, KW, no one’s accusing you of heterodoxy. You’re the very model of a mainstream, orthodox, Marcionite relativist sophist, no one can gainsay that.

Thanks for explaining that the reason you told a non-believer to take a bishopric calling as a forum to push his views was because of his concern for his re-activation and because of your trust in the divine guidance of church callings. I admit that I would not have intuited that motive if you hadn’t explained it.

“as a forum to push his views”

The views that I suggested he push were clearly stated in the thread — that ward members ought to love, forgive, and serve each other. I’d happily make those same suggestions in a T&S post, or a sacrament talk.

What’s your own take? Was the calling uninspired, then? Did God get it wrong, or merely the fellow’s local priesthood leaders? Should calling-as-reactivation be entirely abolished? Why not let the fellow lift where he stands — Elder Uchtdorf’s recent talk about callings — and see if some good comes of it? His local leaders know his activity and TR status and are sure to be keeping an eye on him anyway.


Adam G.
June 11, 2009

You forget, sir, that I’ve actually read what you wrote and have experience with you. That eyewash won’t wash.


Adam G.
June 11, 2009

I got out of Times and Seasons just in time maybe. Their resident OMRS has linked to a blog dedicating to resisting the “authoritarian censorship” of the LDS church, including when it comes to keeping the temple ceremony private:

http://www.mindonfire.com/2009/06/10/i-think-i-was-just-informed-of-my-pending-excommunication/

Update: link’s been removed.


Scott B.
June 11, 2009

No freaking joke, AG. Holy crap.


John Mckinney
June 11, 2009

What does OMRS mean?


Adam G.
June 26, 2009

And, of course, this:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/06/how-wide-the-divide-and-can-we-ever-bridget/#more-8732

I’m betting two posts, tops, before our favorite albino anti-Mormon tells us how much she loves Mormons.


Kaimi
June 27, 2009

You caught me, Adam. I invited in the nacle’s most vocal evangelical, as part of my nefarious scheme to convert T&S readers to atheism, Wicca, and New Order Mormonism. (Err — and Marcionism, right?)

It all makes sense now.


Adam G.
June 29, 2009

Courtesy of the T&S sidebar, we can all wait for the Womens’ Ordination Group together:

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=2542


Kaimi
June 29, 2009

There you go — that’s much better!


Matsby
June 29, 2009

Oh that would be great. Because the thing is I hate my church so much that I do not want to pay my tithing to it. But at the same time, I love my church so much that I want to pay my tithing to someone else and yet remain a full tithe payer in the church – which I hate and love simultaniously.

That way I could both support it and protest it. One on the one hand – the other on the other hand. Fully invested in my hate and my love of the same thing. Serving both at the same time equally. A subject to each master in equal messure.

Ugh… Bishops are so partiachal!


Adam G.
June 29, 2009

Matsby,
I want to express how awesome that last comment was by farting in its general direction.

[...] with LDS and Evangelical Conversations AND who has infiltrated Times and Seasons (and has gotten a great endorsement from ex-T&Ser Adam G for being such a good Wolf-in-Sheep’s-Cloth…). So I mean, I understand that what should’ve been an easy category is filled with other [...]


John C.
July 7, 2009

sigh


piskodrocho
July 9, 2009

I want to listen good music!


Matsby
July 9, 2009

Seriously, there’s nothing worse than listening bad music.


Adam G.
September 15, 2009

recent T&S sidebar links include an invitation to muse on how we’d take being asked by our bishop to account for our online blogging, a reflection on why its not only OK but mandatory to be a cafeteria Mormon, and a couple of folks’ accounts of their excommunication. Ugh.

On the plus side, Nate Oman is “against the cafeteria,” which is a good thing to be against.


Vader
September 15, 2009

I like having an open mind, but not to the point where my brains fall out.


GST
September 15, 2009

Minds are like parachutes: they work best when made of silk, or perhaps Dacron.


Adam G.
September 16, 2009

KW’s latest link: an article calling on Mormons to stop paying tithing because the Church apparently owns a couple of game preserves

http://thefaithfuldissident.blogspot.com/2009/09/sacrificing-principle-for-profit-church.html


Kaimi
September 17, 2009

Don’t forget, I also linked to a story about Ben & Jerry’s gay-marriage ice cream, and to an article claiming that the divorce rate has gone down in Massachusetts since Goodridge.

And to a blog post about soybeans. Soybeans!


Justmeherenow
September 17, 2009

WRG the latest link at T&S (JrGanymede’s link to Jeremy Beer): wow – great stuff!


John Mansfield
September 18, 2009

It’s hard for unmarried people to get divorced, but such is the legal discrimination that they must live with.


John Mansfield
September 18, 2009

Actually, it appears that the claim that divorce went down in Massachusetts is innumerate nonsense based on comparing monthly counts for 2008 to annual counts for the other years. The reports that summed the monthly count sum includes an annual count an d warns explicitly that the monthly counts “may be underreported.” Comparing the annual 2008 count with 2007, divorce in Mass. declined 0.16% from 14,644 to 14,621. I’ll bet the population of Mass. declined by more than that. Another big clue from looking at previous year’s figures: the claimed drop in divorce rate all happenned between 2007 and 2008. These facts were right there available to whoever the liar was that got the ball rolling on this claim, and could have been checked in 15 minutes as I just did by any of the fools who repeated the claim.

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_19.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/Divorce%20Rates%2090%2095%20and%2099-07.pdf


Kaimi
September 18, 2009

John Mansfield,

Did you really just say that? You looked at monthly versus yearly statistics; ran some numbers (interesting numbers, by the way), gave website links, and mocked people making the claim: “These facts were right there available to whoever the liar was that got the ball rolling on this claim, and could have been checked in 15 minutes as I just did by any of the fools who repeated the claim.”

And yet for a key point of your own argument, you simply state, “I’ll bet the population of Mass. declined by more than that.”

What kind of cherry-picking, upside-down methodology is that? You check all of the figures when useful to attack opponents, but when making your own assertions (on an easily checked fact matter) it’s simply seat of the pants.

And your hunch was wrong, by the way. The population of Massachusetts did _not_ decline between 2007 and 2008. According to those partisan hacks at the Census Bureau, it grew by about 30,000 people (estimated), an increase of around 0.5%.

The link for that is at http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2008-01.csv

“These facts were right there available,” “could have been checked in 15 minutes,” etc., etc.


Vader
September 18, 2009

All right, Kaimi, you win. Let’s support same-sex marriage on the grounds that it marginally reduces heterosexual divorce rates.

Or did I miss the point of this whole discussion?


John Mansfield
September 18, 2009

So, the one part I labeled speculation in a blog comment was incorrect; 0.5% populatoin increase rather than 0.2% decrease. That’s about the same as writing a post, repeated far and wide, that divorce declined 11% when it actually went down 0.16%? Much as I wrote before, it is innumerate nonsense to equate those two things

Here’s another speculation. This weekend I will write a proper analysis of these numbers and post it at Millennial Star. I bet that very few of those outlets that publicized this false drop will have any interest in letting people know that it wasn’t so. Maybe Times and Seasons will be an exception.


John Mansfield
September 18, 2009

By the way, a factor playing into my false hunch about the Mass. population is that in both 2004 and 2005, its population did decline from the previous year, as shown in Kaimi’s link. I was aware of that at the time, but such is no longer the case, and my hunch was much out of date.


Kaimi
September 18, 2009

Vader,

My basic theory is this: The more you tighten your grasp, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

John,

On the broader point that these are provisional numbers which will change to some degree as the CDC receives final information, that seems right to me. Provisional numbers can be helpful in some cases. In others, they can be misleading.

It doesn’t seem inaccurate to say, as the blog I linked says, “provisional numbers indicate that the divorce rate dropped.” However, that finding is obviously subject to revision as later numbers come in. That’s a good point, and one which was not adequately emphasized in the post I linked or in the quoted language I used in my link.


Vader
September 18, 2009

You mean you really do think we should support gay marriage because this will strengthen heterosexual marriage?

I get more sympathetic with Adam all the time.


Kaimi
September 18, 2009

No, Vader. I think that gay marriage probably has a negligible to very small effect on heterosexual marriage. I have found the various sky-is-falling arguments unconvincing. I don’t know any straight people who are saying, “I am going to not-get-married because the gays can get married too now.”

I do think it might have a very small effect because there would be a limited number of bisexual people affected by a lock-in effect. That is, Jane (a bisexual woman) is in a relationship with Jenny and they have a fight. At this point, Jane might leave the relationship and reenter the dating market (and perhaps eventually find and marry a man). If her relationship with Jenny is a marriage, then it is somewhat less likely that she would leave it over a fight. So in a limited number of cases — where the relationship involves a bisexual person, and has just enough tension that it would break up a non-marriage, but not enough tension that it would break up a marriage — I think that gay marriage effectively takes a potential heterosexual spouse off of the marriage market, and thus probably has a small effect on heterosexual marriage rates.

(The lock-in effect would always be a small number, because it would be comprised of some fraction of the already small number of gay marriages.)

On overall marriage rates, I would suspect it is more or less a wash, or possibly a slight gain due to the relatively small number of people in gay marriages.


John Mansfield
September 18, 2009

Kaimi, your link on the topic in turn linked to a source at Huffington Post, which linked to the CDC divorce stats. The annual data was right there next to the sum of monthly data. That’s why I attribute fraud to this whole-apples-to-cut-apples comparison.


Kaimi
September 18, 2009

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to call it fraud, but there certainly seems to be some selective filtering going on.

The monthly numbers jump all over the place, up or down 50% or more in some states. Clearly the annual numbers are more reliable for making any claims.

(And the annual numbers do show a drop, as you note, but nowhere near in the range claimed by the HuffPo and other articles).


Adam G.
September 18, 2009

Soybeans!


Hans
September 23, 2009

Wow, this is still going on? I was just re-reading again for leisure over my lunch and was surprised that there is still back and forth. I think my popcorn is ready.

[...] is only making me more sure that such an exodus from the mainstream bloggernacle is a good idea.  Adam’s important post about this is highly [...]


Natalie K.
October 1, 2009

Don’t even know how I ended up here, but I just have to say the OP reminded me more of a junior high kids’ gossip book than anything else.

Clearly, Kaimi is/was interested in keeping two separate identities. The lack of respect you showed for that is shocking. This whole post just felt more like a tattle-tale than anything else.


Adam G.
October 1, 2009

In gospel terms, ‘having two separate identities’ is called being two-faced.


gst
October 1, 2009

Adam, she doesn’t even know how she ended up here. She’s lost, confused, and scared. Just help her find her way back to the disaffected Mormon underground. Maybe she has an ID bracelet or something.


gst
October 1, 2009

By the way, in case anyone ever worries about this, you have the Junior Ganymede pledge that THIS THREAD WILL NEVER BE CLOSED. EVER.


Kaimi
October 1, 2009

I’m understandably pleased at the decision to keep this thread open in perpetuity, as I have always sought after immortality.

Or was it immorality? I always get those two mixed up. Potayto, potahto.


Adam G.
October 1, 2009

I think KW just confessed to reading Iowahawk. Worser and worser.


Johnna
October 1, 2009

Wow, still gathering things for the list. How very …Lavina?


Vader
October 1, 2009

Finally took the time to look up what NOM meant.

Egads.

Anyone who could seriously mock the Church with the “pray, pay, and obey” snark is no Latter-day Saint.

Adam, I sympathize with you more now than ever.


Kaimi
October 1, 2009

Anyone who could seriously mock the Church with the “pray, pay, and obey” snark is no Latter-day Saint.”

I’m relatively certain that I’ve never uttered that phrase, Vader. Perhaps it’s a miscommunication, what with the black mask and heavy breathing. Or perhaps I forgot about it in an LSD flashback.

Adam, I sympathize with you more now than ever.

I sympathize even more. Poor Adam has dedicated himself to tracking and exposing my sins and errors, which are legion. One might as well count the sands at the seaside, or number the stars in the sky.


Adam G.
October 2, 2009

my sins and errors, which are legion

And that’s pride, which is another one. I’ll add it to the list, along with laws, roads, and aqueducts.


Vader
October 2, 2009

Kaimi, do you in fact consider yourself a New Order Mormon?

Because the first link I clicked after finding the New Order Mormon web site took me to a page mocking a lesson on tithes and offerings that began with that phrase.


twiceuponatime
October 2, 2009

The phrase “pray, pay, and obey” IIRC, comes from Steve Benson in the famous 60 minutes special on Mormons (Gordon B. replied “that’s a clever phrase from Steve, whom I know” and left it at that).


Kaimi
October 2, 2009

Hi Vader,

I do have some friends who self-label as NOMs; and I have in the past enjoyed dancing at teenage church dances to songs by the British synth-pop group New Order. (I mean, who doesn’t like grooving to Blue Monday?)

However, I don’t (and haven’t) describe(d) myself as a New Order Mormon. The only person I’m aware of who has applied the label New Order Mormon to me is Adam. I don’t self-describe that way, and I certainly don’t subscribe to all statements that any old person might put on a website explaining how they might define that term. (My rather detailed description of my heretical views can be found in a post at this fine site.)

While I applaud the impulse to find extrinsic cumulative evidence to support Adam’s charges, I must point out that there’s really no need to look to others’ statements for evidence to hang me. As Adam’s ongoing project makes clear, I provide more than enough rope on my own.

(For instance, I just put up a sidebar link to a CNN story about Blasphemy Day, earlier this week. Surely that counts for something?)


Vader
October 2, 2009

Thanks for the clarification, Kaimi.

Just so I’m sure I understand, your chief unorthodoxy is believing women should be ordained to the priesthood? Is that correct? Is there anything else?


Kaimi
October 2, 2009

Good question, Vader.

I would say that I have some broader structural heterodoxies, as well as more specific heterodoxies. On a structural level, the main difference is that I am substantially less exclusivist than traditional Mormon orthodoxy. I tend to believe that there are many roads to Rome, and that God has a big tent, far bigger than churches (including our own) tend to recognize. Consistent with that, I suspect that at least some LDS doctrines and ordinances are probably focusing tools, intended to focus faith and bring about Christlike behavior, rather than being strictly necessary salvific checkpoints. I’ve referred to myself in the past as a Mormon Universalist (though that’s an imperfect label). I do think that there is some support for this approach in the statements of some church leaders, but it is not a traditional orthodox LDS view.

On a more specific level, I do think that male-only priesthood has harmful effects — it deprives women of many service and leadership opportunities, and in some cases fosters bad behavior among men. I would personally favor extending priesthood to women, but I recognize that this belief is rather heterodox, and I don’t usually talk about it on blog.

I have also disagreed with the church’s political stance on gay rights and on Prop 8, and have stated publicly that I think that some of the statements made on Prop 8 — including by church leaders — were factually or legally inaccurate. I try to limit my disagreements to pointing out specific inaccuracies while generally avoiding any broader attacks on the church position. I tend to view my disagreement on Prop 8 as a political rather than religious disagreement, but to the extent that one believes that LDS orthodoxy requires a particular position on Prop 8, I would be out of compliance on that item as well.

(Also, along with ~85% of the bloggernacle, I disagree with Elder Packer’s talk about church history. I don’t think that’s an orthodoxy marker.)


Vader
October 2, 2009

Many roads to Rome: It would be interesting to know which ordinances or doctrines you believe are not strictly necessary, and how you reconcile this with the emphasis on works for the dead.

Male-only priesthood: We’re just gonna have to disagree on that one. I can’t imagine I can make any argument to you that you haven’t already rejected.

Proposition 8: I agree that a disagreement over whether secular law should reflect the orthodox Mormon belief that marriage is a man/woman thing may be purely political. Do you share the orthodox Mormon belief that marriage is a man/woman thing?

Elder Packer on church history: It is clear that even some of the Brethren disagree with him on this. For that matter, I suspect David O. McKay would have disagreed with him on this. Just a suspicion.


Kaimi
October 2, 2009

Actually, I blogged recently about ordinances for the dead, at http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/07/the-participatory-nature-of-salvation-for-the-dead/ . Our model of salvation for the dead is extremely labor intensive and participatory in nature, and probably not particularly effective as an ordinance-delivering vehicle. (According to our ward genealogy rep, ordinance duplication is upwards of 5 in 6 in many temple districts.) Other scriptural models for ordinance waivers exist — Moroni 8 — which seem much more effective if the goal is to make sure that everyone has every box accurately checked off. My conclusion is that our salvation for the dead model is intended to foster connection (hearts of the children turn to the fathers) rather than to ensure that every box is properly checked.

On marriage, I have no desire to force the church to perform same-sex marriages. I am happy to celebrate the secular or religious (non-LDS) marriages of my gay friends, however.


Vader
October 2, 2009

The first is a pretty huge unorthodoxy. Worse than wanting women ordained, in my opinion.

You haven’t really told me whether you share the orthodox Mormon belief that marriage is a man/woman thing.


Kaimi
October 2, 2009

Probably true that my belief on salvation for the dead is also quite heterodox, Vader. I simply don’t see how our current salvation for the dead system can be viewed as an efficient delivery vehicle for ordinances.

There are 14 million Mormons. However, a large number of these are baseball baptisms in Latin America. A very generous estimate of current temple recommend holders might be 2 million. If each recommend holder goes to the temple twice a month, that’s still only 48 million temple trips. If we assume that one temple trip fully completes a deceased person’s temple work — a simplification, but ordinances other than endowments are often done en masse — that’s still only 48 million people per year. But duplication is sky high, and as many as 3/4 of those are duplicates. Even with 2 million TR holders going twice a month (which would be much higher than the average TR holder, in my observation) we’d still only likely complete work for 12 or 15 million people.

But 130 to 150 million new births are happening every year. Thus, we are running a deficit in ordinances, a very large one.

And there was an extremely large initial debt to be paid off. Estimates for total-people-who-have-ever-lived vary widely, but tend to be between 50 and 100 billion. Meanwhile, even applying the most optimistic possible calculations, I am relatively sure that the total mass of temple work done is nowhere near even 100 million total.

So a best case scenario seems to be that we have less than 100 million done, with another 50 billion to go, and that we’re losing ground at a rate of several tens of millions per year.

Here, the conversation typically turns to the Deus ex machina of “it will all be figured out in the millennium.” And this may well be the case. Either way, I don’t see how our current temple work is an effective ordinance delivery vehicle for more than a very tiny slice of the population.


Vader
October 2, 2009

“Here, the conversation typically turns to the Deus ex machina of “it will all be figured out in the millennium.” And this may well be the case.”

I’m inclined to think so. Deus ex machina is, after all, a reasonable description of the Second Coming.

“Either way, I don’t see how our current temple work is an effective ordinance delivery vehicle for more than a very tiny slice of the population.”

Perhaps that slice is important to God. And perhaps that slice is laying the groundwork for a much expanded effort later.

Which does not exclude the possibility that the benefit to us is also important.

I still haven’t heard your views on the nature of marriage.


Kaimi
October 2, 2009

On marriage, it depends on whether we are talking about a civil ordinance or a religious sacrament.

I am generally in favor of extending civil marriage rights to same sex couples. And I am in favor of extending federal marital rights to same-sex couples.

I would oppose on religious freedom grounds any requirement that any particular religious organization solemnize same-sex marriages. And I tend to think that recognition of legal rights is much more important than the label of marriage — I would be fine with a robust civil union/domestic partnership statute at the federal level.


Vader
October 3, 2009

But do you agree with the Church’s doctrine that marriage, the religious sacrament, is between a man and a woman?


Kaimi
October 3, 2009

Within the church, sure. Every organization has the right to define its sacraments as it sees fit. I don’t think that there is a platonic ideal which corresponds to the current definition (which has changed significantly from prior in-church definitions).

Along those lines, I also favor decriminalization of consenting-adult polygamy. This would place me firmly within LDS orthodoxy a century ago; nowadays, this view is probably considered heterodox.


Vader
October 3, 2009

“Decriminalization” is a civil term. It doesn’t have much bearing on your religious orthodoxy.

I don’t think that there is a platonic ideal which corresponds to the current definition (which has changed significantly from prior in-church definitions).

You don’t think there is an ideal in the mind of God, or you don’t think it corresponds to the current Church definition? If the latter, do you believe marriage between persons of the opposite sex has a place in the mind of God?

The Church has instructed us not to take a second living spouse prior to a civil divorce from the first one. It has not said that a plural marriage is not a marriage, nor forbidden us to take a second spouse when the first is no longer living. In other words, the Church’s definition and doctrine of marriage has not changed, only the policy on what is presently permissible.

I can understand that it may seem like splitting hairs to distinguish between what the Church does not recognize as a marriage and what the Church recognizes as a marriage but forbids. I can’t help that. I mean, if you call a tail a leg, how may legs does a dog have?


Kaimi
October 6, 2009

As interesting as all of this public hair splitting about my personal beliefs has been, I think I’m about done for now. I’ve set out my views in some detail in posts and comments here (and for that matter, in any number of other blog posts elsewhere), and hopefully cleared up some misconceptions in the process. If you’d like to continue to grill me about — err, discuss — them, drop me a line by e-mail.


Bruce Nielson
October 9, 2009

Kaimi,

I personally don’t care if you are or aren’t a self described New Order Mormon. For one, I think that’s a legitimate view point (whether or not you are one, it’s still legit.)

That being said, may I point out that a point by point comparison of where you are or aren’t heterodox is beside the point.

The question that actually matters is: please tell us what unique truth claims of the LDS Church you agree with.

Read that last sentence carefully. I’m not asking for where you agree with LDS doctrine across the board. Saying, “I believe in God” is to avoid the question.

Examples might be:
Do you believe the LDS Church has unique authority?
Do you believe salvation for the dead actually does something for the dead?
Do you believe the Book of Mormon is actually a record (of any sort) about real people that actually existed?
Do you believe was visited by a The Father and the Son as actual personages in a grove of trees?
Do you believe the Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s?
Do you believe Joseph Smith was called as a Prophet to the whole world?

Please note, you’ll be wasting everyone’s time if you avoid answering these questions by using misleading answers.

For example, my experience is that people who are deceptive about their real beliefs will, say, take that last question and answer “Yes, I believe Joseph Smith was inspired of God.” Which misleads and does not answer the real question.

I’m NOT trying to accuse you of anything here, Kaimi. I haven’t the foggiest idea who you even are. But I hope you see that this is a completely legitimate question I’m asking.

Also, please don’t waste time by answer “what, are you the orthodox police?” Nope, I’m not. And I don’t care what your beliefs are either. The only thing I’m really wondering here is if you are being deceptive or not, as Adam seems to imply. (Not trying to put words in your mouth, Adam.)

If you are being above the board about your beliefs when people ask you directly, like I’m now doing, peace be with you Brother – no matter what you believe. But if you avoid the answer to obviously valid questions like I just asked, this would seem to confirm Adam’s point of view that you are being deceptive and I’d have to say he has a point.

It seems to me that of all Adam’s complaints, the one that actually mattered was a charge that you encouraged someone who didn’t believe in any of the unique truth claims of the LDS Church to become a spiritual leader in that community. I have no idea if this charge is true or not, but if it is, I am personally very offended by it and find it unacceptable and dangerous behavior.


Adam G.
October 24, 2009

It seems that someone named Rory at Times and Seasons is helping KW out–he’s just posted a link to an article on how the LDS church is under judgment because of its horrible insensitivity to the saintly gays in our midst:
http://youngstranger.blogspot.com/2009/10/mene-mene-tekel-upharsin.html


Adam G.
October 24, 2009

Oh, and an article from the Tribune pointing out Elder Oaks’ “errors”.


Kaimi
October 24, 2009

Err, do you mean the SLTrib article linked by Marc, which quotes Nate Oman as a legal expert?

The plot widens — maybe *everyone* at T&S is secretly a Universalist Marcionite Gay Wiccan. This is worse than I thought.


Kaimi
October 27, 2009

KW also recently posted a quote from some left-wing rag arguing that same-sex marriage would bring about positive changes in the institution of marriage.


Vader
October 27, 2009

The Nation == left-wing rag. Yup.

I though for a moment you were trying to be ironic.


Adam G.
December 1, 2009

According to the latest sidebar link (on the Manhattan Declaration) being against abortion means ‘declaring war on people who accidentally get pregnant’ and being for keeping marriage the same means ‘declaring war on gays’ and stating your religious affiliation means ‘declaring war on other religions.’

This, on the other hand, I can agree with:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/11/29/are-right-wing-mormons-more-likely-to-be-annoying-than-left-wing-mormons/#comment-168140


Mark Brown
December 30, 2009

Snark! Because its funny.


Adam G.
December 30, 2009

BCC is now questioning celibacy outside of marriage.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/12/28/celibacy-in-new-york-city/#comment-170119

Liberal Mormons–the cutting edge of the 1930s.


Kaimi
December 31, 2009

Let’s not lose focus, people. This thread is about *me*. If you need a place to bash on BCC generally, I can open up a post for you at T&S, or you can open one here.

Besides, I’m certain that my documentable faults make anything you can find at BCC pale in comparison . . . put together. Steve Evans is French for poseur.

(The only exception is Aaron Brown. But if you’re going to document his faults, you’re going to need a few more posts, and some research assistants.)


Bruce Nielson
December 31, 2009

Kaimi, you’ve got a fantastic sense of humor. You and Adam are more similar than either of you realize (and I mean that as a compliment to both of you.)

I have a sincere question for you. What’s wrong with documenting things like this?

I personally really liked Kevin’s post. But if this bother’s Adam (and I can see why it might) I think commenting on it has got to be seen as legitimate as when you are someone else criticizes the LDS Church leader’s teachings.

I’m uncomfortable with what I see as a “dual standard” of sorts on the bloggernacle – though I do not believe it’s intentional. It seems to me that the more “liberal” points of view are seen as “personal” and thus “off limits” for direct criticism. (Or at least we all recognize those that do as being jerks.)

But the “standard beliefs” are somehow “not personal” and thus it’s okay to criticize them with much harsher and often mocking words and no one ever calls people on it in quite the same way.

I, for one, think mocking is always wrong (though one person’s mocking might be another person’s legitimate ribbing I suppose. I’m not saying we should remove color from our conversations) but I rather think we have to learn to treat all questions of belief equal before any real dialog can start – even if we’re talking about one person’s personal beliefs.

For me, that starts with us all coming clean about what we believe so that we can actually share and learn from one another. I think it’s wrong for someone to hide their beliefs while criticizing others beliefs.


Mark Brown
January 1, 2010

Yes, I can.


hoangminhtwo
January 10, 2010

Có tất cả những mẫu thông dụng hàng ngày: mẫu đơn, mẫu hợp đồng, biên bản, công văn, báo cáo, các mẫu phiếu, mẫu đăng ký…
Tất cả đều được soạn thảo cẩn thận, và hoàn toàn MIỄN PHÍ. Bạn có thể download, chia sẻ tự do mà ko cần qua bất kỳ một khâu đăng ký, ghi danh nào hết.
Tại sao phải bỏ tiền để mua các Mẫu văn bản, tại sao phải mất công để soạn hợp đồng?

Rất hay!


Lovecraft
January 11, 2010

Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn


Julie K
January 17, 2010

Hi guys!
I was a very faithful reader of T&S for many years starting in the summer of 2004. Adam, Kaimi, Steve Evans, and Nate O were constantly discussing controversial subjects and opening my eyes to subjects that I had never ever considered as a very faithful member of the LDS church. Watching you four interact and disagree about everything taught me the art of critical thinking, and I have since put it to good use examining my beliefs. As a result, I no longer consider myself a mormon. And that is nothing short of miraculous!

Thank you sincerely from the bottom of my heart (and soul) for helping me see things that I never would have seen without your help!
Best wishes to you and yours.
Warmest regards, Julie K


Kaimi
January 17, 2010

Hi Julie,

It’s good to hear from you. I’m glad that the blog played a role in your spiritual journey. I don’t think that exit from the church is the right option for everyone; but it seems to make some people happier, and if our discussions helped you find a place of understanding and growth in your own life, then I’m glad that we were able to have those discussions with you. Thanks for sharing your story.

(I do suspect that others’ opinions may vary somewhat from my own.)


Adam G.
January 18, 2010

Precisely. I left T&S because at least some of its bloggers could be glad they helped someone on their spiritual fall out of the church.


Julie K
January 19, 2010

Adam, I think of it more as a graduation out of the church…no falling involved. :)


Vader
January 19, 2010

Further reinforcing Adam’s point.


Jan Riley
April 7, 2011

Simplify: Living the commandments of God brings light aka “the law is a lamp.” Entering into a covenant relationship to obey all the commandments is rewarded with a promise to receive all light and all glory possible. Less commitment is rewarded with less light. And so on. There are as many degrees of light and glory as there are sons and daughters of God. We have our agency to decide where we want to land on the spectrum. Have at it. :-)


Adam G.
May 17, 2011

I just discovered that T&S Stakhanovite poster Dane Laverty is a leading member of a group formed to ‘agitate’ to change LDS priesthood doctrine.

http://agitatingfaithfully.org/home

Puts a new light, though, on Dane Laverty’s recent post where he described New Order Mormons in positive terms.


Adam G.
October 26, 2011

This description of Occupy Wall Street irresistibly reminded me of my time as a T&S coblogger:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-vs-the-drum-circle/247366/


Vader
November 2, 2011

Adam, this should build your appreciation of the Book of Mormon. You, too, now know what it is to get out of Jerusalem just before the Babylonians take over.


Adam G.
December 12, 2011

The ‘just asking’ questions defense is now the ‘just speculating’ defense:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2011/12/mad-scientist/


John Mansfield
December 13, 2011

When Descartes wrote up his thoughts on how to reason, he included as a sample explanation some theorizing on the circulation of blood through the body. I might expect that someone working on a theory of Mormon theorizing might try applying it first to some random topic from a wide range of possibilities, but I would be missing the point.


Bookslinger
December 14, 2011

When you do it, it’s speculating. When I do it, it’s making well-reasoned and logical deductions from the standard works and pronouncements of the modern prophets.


Wm
May 7, 2012

That’s hilarious (on both sides).


Bookslinger
May 8, 2012

Ralph Hancock gave words to what I’ve long thought.


Vader
May 8, 2012

I wish I had the ability to keep my cool and try reason with those I disagree with like that.


Bookslinger
May 8, 2012

I think one of Hancock’s theses, perhaps not stated directly, is that it is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to reason with those who have such opposite underlying assumptions or “givens.”

In the arena of ideas, I think too much has already been ceded, such that reclaiming the hearts and minds of many adults is impossible at this time. Our only hope in staving off the current slide into deeper degradation is in a course correction in the institutions of education and media, and to raise up future generations with correct thinking.

The moral relativists have controled education and media (news and entertainment) for 2 generations now. It’s a losing battle, because for every “convert” that is made to correct thinking, schools and media just churcn out more liberals.


Adam G.
July 25, 2012

T&S has just linked to an ex-Mormon article at City Weekly talking about how untrue the church is, how miserable missions are, and how oppressive it is that Church culture pressures us to pretend that missions are OK and the Church not built on lies.

Lovely stuff.


Camilla G.
August 8, 2012

That Adam’s disclosure of KW’s identity drew more condemnation than KW’s (somewhat deceptive) portrayal of himself as a believing Latter-day Saint interests me. In his credit, his postings since have seemed admirably open. Does the right to privacy (online or elsewhere) include the right to deception? My personal moral judgment is against it.
In interest of full disclosure, I ought to mention I tend to be a partisan of Adam’s and am a close blood relative.
In a recent CES fireside, it was noted that online debate tends to be more civil and of higher quality when people posted under their real identities. Even the New York Times (hardly a bastion of ultra-conservatism) has adopted such a posting policy on its website. I believe the fireside was May 2009 and Elder Bednar was the speaker, but I may be mistaken in that.
Adam certainly is not shy in his criticism, but if he can dish it out he can take it too. I admire his refusal to conceal his true views, a trait that characterizes him in person as well as online.


Vader
August 9, 2012

I resemble the remark about posting under true names. My employer has asked that I do otherwise. I am tempted at times to tell him to blow it out his ear, since I doubt he’d actually dare to sanction me for posting under my real name, but I haven’t quite worked up the nerve yet.


Adam G.
September 17, 2012

Today T&S put up a sidebar link with Elder Oaks warning against the danger of rightwing militias.

One hopes that all the right wing militiamen in the T&S readership take the warning to heart.


Bookslinger
September 17, 2012

Is the take-away that center/left militias are okay?

(Got your year supply of ammo?)


ProofofConcept
November 1, 2012

My music is so lousy, I have to spam completely unrelated sites to get any listeners at all.


Kaimi
November 1, 2012

This thread is still going? Oh, my.

[Adam G.--Indeed. The last comments have been spam and T&Sers kvetching. Obsession--its not just a perfume in Egypt.]

Apparently some people can leave T&S, but they can’t leave T&S alone. : )

[Adam G.--I never left T&S. Granted, I don't participate there anymore. But as a liberal T&Ser, I reject these narrow and oppressive notions that one must be part of an institution to be part of it.]


Alison Moore Smith
November 1, 2012

Adam, as you know, I’ve been with T&S for a few years now, but blogging at Mormon Momma for almost a decade. All this drama predates me, but I’d like to make a couple of points, if you’ll allow:

(1) While I write at T&S, I don’t manage the sidebar links. I am free to post what I like, as are others perms. Your comment implies that the sidebar links are somehow representative of the collective thinking at T&S — and they are not.

(2) I believe all perms agree to keep the private backlist conversations private. At least I did. Yet you post them here. I think that’s inappropriate even if you think it helps your case.

(3) I actually ended up here because you posted a new column in T&S. Honestly, I don’t understand. You hate T&S. You have a running post (here) about why. Yet you still publish closed-comment posts over there to drive traffic to your site?

Honestly, I don’t get it.


Adam G.
November 1, 2012

Miss Alison,
thanks for coming over to comment on the Earned Respect, Unconditional Love post. I hope you enjoyed it. Your comment seems to have been eaten, so please post it again or else email it to me.


Alison Moore Smith
November 1, 2012

I didn’t say I came over to comment on the post. I said I came here because of your duplicate post on T&S. I saw the link at the bottom and clicked over to see what you are up to.

I was disappointed to see this post and, even more, that you are still updating it with complaints about the site/people you are using for traffic generation.

It seems an odd choice.

And, hey, it’s Mrs. Alison, to you. ;)


The Junior Ganymede Club Committee
November 1, 2012

Please disabuse yourself of the notion that Junior Ganymede tries to generate traffic. We are far too fond of the black ball to throw open the doors wide. We are exclusive, Madame, and were it not chivalrous, we would take umbrage.

We regret your disappoint extremely. Alas, this world is a vale of tears. Expect more disappointment to follow at irregular intervals, as the mood takes us.


Marc
November 1, 2012

“Please disabuse yourself of the notion that Junior Ganymede tries to generate traffic.”

Then what exactly is the purpose of cross-posting at T&S?


Adam G.
November 1, 2012

Cross-post? Not I. I’m comfortable in my blogality.


The Junior Ganymede Club Committee
November 1, 2012

Mr. G. is pleased to be jocose. Knowing his character, we can assure the gentleman that he cross-posts to generate traffic for Times and Seasons. His motives are philanthropic. We trust that clears up all your questions, which are no doubt kindly meant.

In the future, if T&S regulars wish to submit our membership to interrogation, let them use email or combine their quibbles into one comment, to avoid the odious impression of generating traffic here. We exempt the ladies, of course.


Marc
November 1, 2012

I didn’t say I had any quibbles, I just found that statement odd. The only reason TO cross post is to generate traffic for your blog post, something I have no issue with mind you. If, in the future, I ever have a quibble though, I’ll be sure to take it up with you via e-mail.


Bertie W.
November 1, 2012

Flippant statements are odd? Oh, I say. I find them to be perfectly normal, dash it.


Vader
November 1, 2012

Speaking for myself, as a person who is literally not Adam: I wouldn’t visit Times and Seasons at all if it weren’t for his cross-postings.


Marc
November 1, 2012

I don’t follow Vader. Why would his cross-posting the posts encourage you to visit T&S? I mean, the fact that they are cross-posted here at Jr. Ganymede should make T&S irrelevant, particularly since the comments are closed at T&S and folks are redirected to this blog to discuss the posts. I mean, unless you simply enjoy prefer “big brown’s” WordPress layout. It is rather eye-catching.


Ye ed., aka The Blogger Mighty and Strong
November 1, 2012

This has got too dull and niggling for words. Since this navel-gazing does not involve Pier Angeli’s midriff, it will now cease.

Ask not for whom the comment-deletion hammer looms. It looms for thee.


Vader
November 2, 2012

Very well, Marc. You’ve convinced me that there’s no good reason for me to visit Times and Season just because Adam cross posts there once in a blue moon.

[Ye ed. -- Egads. Stop it, stop it, stop it, or I shall start to whine.]

[...] Adam G., commenting on his own post “Why I quit Times and Seasons” at Junior Ganymede: [...]


Adam G.
March 13, 2013

Carpers gonna carp.

Did you know conservative Mormons, in addition to being Mormon, are also not Catholic or Protestant? True story. They are also, if you can believe it, not even Buddhist or Wiccan. They have so many motes in their eyes, its a wonder they can see. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/03/the-shoes-on-the-other-foot/


Adam G.
March 21, 2013

A man is angry that women don’t have to have the priesthood:
http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2013/03/im-a-mormon-and-i-believe-that-women/


twiceuponatime
March 21, 2013

I just find Kaimi’s insistence that he’s still Mormon (when he pretty much rejects everything about the church and wants to remake it in his own image) quite funny.


John Mansfield
March 21, 2013

The funny part for me is that if you think that it’s a good thing that those women who want to should fill roles as spouses to other women or as infantry soldiers, well then, we get it, you think EVERY role should be open to women. If woman’s spouse measures a 10 on the masculinity scale, and infantryman somewhere in the same vicinity, then priest measures how high? By some lines of thought it would be up around 10 as well, but generally such a role seems as masculine as being a school teacher. It only makes sense to specifically voice support for women as priests, if you don’t already support women as women’s spouses.


Ask a Liberal Mormon
May 21, 2013

I love how Adam Miller sidesteps the question. But how dare Peterson ask questions based on a single sentence about embracing atheists as part of Mormonism? He’s so judgmental. I wouldn’t let *him* sit beside me at church, that’s for sure.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/05/are-we-headed-for-orthodox-conservative-reform-and-humanistic-mormonisms.html#disqus_thread

[…] Culture, and setting safe zones/boundaries, is the primary means of controlling the conversation. This is what I mean when I saw boundaries on the Bloggernacle are culturally enforced. You quickly get the hint you aren’t wanted there. Those that doubt are within the safe zone and those that believe aren’t. […]

Leave a Reply