Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

Aloysius Miller aka Kaimipono Wenger aka the Great Oz responds

April 09th, 2009 by G.

Following our ironclad policy of posting opposing viewpoints only if they’re funny, we post the following, which we have received from Aloysius Miller aka Kaimipono Wenger aka the Great Oz. Kudos to the reader who can spot all 7 of the edits we made before posting, just because we could.*

Because the scope of my personal belief has been raised in posts here and elsewhere, I hereby present this brief discussion, All About Me.

Q. Are you witty like Adam?

A. Alas, no.

Q. Have you ever posted at The Foyer, as Adam claims?

A. Yes. I’ve posted there under the handle, “Cafeteria Mormon.”

Q. What is that board?

A. It’s a message board where mostly former Mormons talk about church and other issues.

Q. How did this chain of events come about?

A. It all started a couple of years ago when I was grading exams, and looking for a badly needed diversion. I saw a foyer link to a nacle post, and followed it back. I then got into an argument there about whether Terryl Givens is a real scholar. (My opinion: He is.)

I started out with the handle The Blogger of Nacle, and later adopted the simpler Cafeteria Mormon handle.

Q. Is it true that the folks over there eat babies?

A. Not very often.

I’ve had a number of interesting discussions at The Foyer. There are many good people over there, and I’ve made a number of friends in the group. (Hi there, Wry, Equality, Linc, Bel, Fig.) Their conversational norms are a little different than the nacle. And like any community, they’ve got some members who I like more than others. There are even a few trolls.

The truth is also that I’ve been a little less active over there lately. I haven’t posted there for at least six months; and even before then, my postings there had tailed off significantly, with very little since last summer. There are various reasons for this. One was fit — I liked many people there and enjoyed some of the discussions, but I did clash at times with community norms (I often come across as an apologist in Foyer discussions). A second reason was time — I barely have time for the blogs that I blog at.

Q. Do you agree with Adam’s characterization (points 82-88 or so in his multi-point brief) of your Foyer postings?

A. I believe that some of Adam’s summaries are accurate, and others are very inaccurate.

Q. Is it true that you used cuss words in some of your Foyer posts? Do you cuss in real life?

A. I have been known to cuss from time to time, especially when hammer-thumb accidents happen, or when someone else is wrong on the internet.

Q. Did you tell Adam your Foyer identity?

A. Yes. I told him on the T&S backlist, and requested that the information be kept in confidence.

Q. He did ask you before posting it then, right?

A. (Cough, cough.) (Crickets.) (Cussing.)

Q. Your beliefs sound pretty heterodox. Are you a Cafeteria Mormon?

A. If I weren’t, I probably would have picked a different handle, no?

As my friend Mark Brown has stated, we’re all cafeteria Mormons, but only some of us admit it. I do find the label helpful, because to me it means that I try to draw on the good in LDS culture and theology to help build myself and my family, and to help us come closer to the Divine. I’ve discussed (at the Foyer and elsewhere) some of the many good things that I draw from the church.

My own belief system is somewhat heterodox, yes. It is complicated, as beliefs often are, and a fair amount of my belief is personal and private, and relates to personal spiritual experience. However, I’m happy to discuss the general contours.

In general, my soteriology is substantially more universal than an orthodox LDS soteriology. (I’m using theological terms and I think I’m using them correctly, but I may be wrong). That is, I don’t see the church as an exclusive conduit to God. I think it can be a very effective conduit to God. However, I reject the claims that the church is a sole avenue to God.

I realize that those claims are a standard part of Mormon theology, and so my rejection of them makes me heterodox in that sense. I don’t believe that exclusivity claims are foundational to Mormonism. (If they were, then my rejection of them would make me effectively not a Mormon.)

However, I view the core of Mormonism not about saying what other churches don’t do, but about asserting what Mormonism can itself do. That is, I see the foundation of Mormonism as a positive framework — “this is an avenue which can take you to God” — rather than as a claim to exclusivity. (And I do think that there is a lot in this view that is consistent with statements from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other prophets, though obviously many of their statements give support for more orthodox views on exclusivity as well).

Corollary to my universalist soteriology is a belief that Mormonism isn’t for everyone. It is a useful tool for approaching God, and works well for many people. However, I don’t believe that everyone must fit into the Mormon mold in order to commune with God; and I think that, for some people, other faith traditions are probably a better fit.

I also recognize that other approaches to Mormonism (including some very orthodox approaches) work very well for some people. I have no intention of trying to disrupt their spiritual equilibrium. I think that the statement from Alma is correct, that we should not seek to interrupt others’ rejoicing. I don’t begrudge others their approach to the church or to God. I think that my approach — viewing Mormonism as a conduit to God, and seeking to draw the good from it — absolutely brings me within the umbrella of Mormonism.

Also corollary to my universalist theology — or perhaps in conjunction with it — is a belief that there is much positive in many different faith traditions (including the LDS tradition, but others as well) and that I personally can benefit from learning how others approach the Divine. I believe in seeking for righteousness in all places. (And there is *definitely* support for this idea in the writings of Joseph Smith.)

Q. Have you been hiding this heterodoxy from us for all these years?

A. I confuse the unwary by using words like soteriology. And I hide the ball with lengthy and detailed personal posts like this one: http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/12/why-do-i-believe-and-what-do-i-believe/ .

Q. Do you have an axe to grind?

A. Actually, the ancient Mayans used stone adzes instead, so when it says “axe” in the Book of Mormon, we should read it that way.

But no, I don’t believe that I have any particular adze to grind. There are aspects of church culture that I find troubling, yes. Sometimes these merit discussion and analysis, and I enjoy having these discussions on the blog. I learn things from discussion, and I find support from friends. I do try (probably not always successfully) to keep these discussions respectful.

I was the original drafter of the T&S comment policy, which states:

“As a general matter, Times and Seasons is a forum for believing members or for others who are willing to respect members’ beliefs. Commenters do not need to believe in the Church, but comments that suggest that all believers are per se unintelligent or uninformed are not welcome. On the flip side, it is also unacceptable to call into question a commenter’s personal righteousness.”

I still strongly support that approach. I don’t wish to impose my beliefs on others, or to tell them that their own approach to communing with God is wrong. I’m no expert, and I’m still learning about communing with God — and I expect that I will be for the rest of this journey

Q. Are you trying to lead T&S to hell? Are you trying to de-convert people?

A. I don’t speak for my co-bloggers as to matters of belief. I’m sure that many (most? all?) of them disagree with me on my more heterodox views. I’m not in charge of T&S, and I certainly don’t wish to impose my belief system on any of my co-bloggers.

In general, I want to respect people’s different approaches to the church. I recognize that my own approach to God is personal and eclectic, and I don’t claim that it’s right for everyone. I don’t wish to disrupt others’ approaches to God. I have never (and will never) post statements at T&S like “the church is not true.” I also try to avoid direct statements saying that church doctrines are wrong, even in areas (such as same-sex marriage) where I have been critical of some specific legal statements. (I.e., I have never posted that “church doctrine on same-sex marriage is wrong.”) My goal of respectful discussion is an aspiration and I’m sure that I miss it sometimes, but it is my goal.

Q. Are you active in your ward?

A. Yes.

Q. What callings do you hold?

A. Elders Quorum instructor, ward photographer, choir accompanist. Until late last year, I was also ward organist and substitute primary pianist. (Yes, five callings.) And home teacher, of course. M. only has one calling, but it’s a big one — she’s the ward YW president.

Q. When was the last time you gave a Book of Mormon away to a non-member, with your testimony?

A. Middle of last year.

Q. When was the last time you participated in a ward service project? Helped a family move in or out of the ward? Spoke in church?

A. Service project (scout project — weeding a big field at the state park), last Saturday. Moved someone, about four months ago. Spoke in church, a couple months ago.

Q. If you’re the one corrupting the youth of Athens, why did Adam have to drink the hemlock?

A. I switched the urns when no one was looking.

Adam G.

Three points:

(1). To my recollection, KW’s statement that he asked me to keep his Cafeteria Mormon secret is simply false, though that doesn’t matter much

(2). KW is trying to make it sound like the main issue here is his universalism (i.e, his idea that Wiccanism is just as true and just as false as Mormonism). It isn’t. I could work with a universalist coblogger if he weren’t preachy about it. Its the lack of belief in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith that crosses a line for me. Its advising someone who rejects the gospel to accept a calling in the bishopric and then advising that person on how best to push that person’s agenda in that position. If blogging were a service project then maybe I’d care more that you find your local Mormon ward a more convenient venue for doing service than your local coven. But it isn’t and I don’t.

(3) Saying that most Mormons are cafeteria Mormons is a slur on most Mormons. Most Mormons believe the gospel, believe the Book of Mormon, believe in Joseph Smith, believe the prophets are prophets, believe the Church is true, and believe in the reality of the priesthood. Most Mormons try hard to accept and understand what the Church teaches and don’t feel like they get to pick and choose what’s true and what isn’t in our doctrine and theology.

*This was a joke.

Comments (57)
Filed under: Deseret Review | No Tag
No Tag
April 09th, 2009 04:43:17
57 comments

Kent Larsen
April 9, 2009

I’ll be very interested to see reactions here to Kaimi’s explanation. It comes across as quite reasonable.

[…] Murray under Bloggernacle | Tags: Bloggernacle | [29] Comments  (Update 04/09/09 7:15 a.m.  Kaimi has apparently responded, appropriately over at Adam’s new blog.  I’ve closed comments on this thread, and […]


gst
April 9, 2009

Great, now I expect that Adam will dramatically resign from Junior Ganymede.


Bridget Jack Meyers
April 9, 2009

Adam ~ I’m curious to hear why you felt it was okay to “out” Kaimi as Cafeteria Mormon. Where I come from, outing someone’s anonymous alias is a huge no-no. I do thank you for posting Kaimi’s side of the story though.

Kaimi ~ I for one appreciate your perspective on things, even when it’s heterodox. When I was 16 and I began studying the LDS church over ten years ago, I had huge issues with the LDS male-only priesthood system, and my online interactions were mostly with extremely orthodox LDS apologists, so I was given all of the lame apologetics for it: women have motherhood while men have priesthood, women are naturally more spiritual/powerful than men so we have to give men the priesthood just to keep up, oh sweetie you don’t want the priesthood it’s just more work, blah blah blah. The lame answers never changed so eventually I just stopped asking, and it was part of the reason I decided against joining the church.

The Bloggernacle didn’t exist back then, and the one answer I never heard from an active Latter-day Saint was that the discriminatory priesthood system was in fact wrong and needed to change. I’m not sure that it would have changed my mind to hear someone say that, but it certainly would have helped. I got tired of people making me feel like I was the one who was broken for not being okay with it.

I’m obviously not interested in conversion now—that ship has sailed—but I can’t say what a relief it has been to interact with people on the Bloggernacle and find faithful and active Latter-day Saints who also think that the priesthood system is “patriarchal bull****.” I believe there is a niche for such views to have a positive impact on the lives of other people who struggle with the same issues.

So, I hope you keep blogging at T&S. We certainly don’t agree on everything, but I’m listening.


Justmeherenow
April 9, 2009

I personlly find the degrees of “faithful heterodoxy” among various and sundry active Mormons really fascinating, from one end of the spectrum, orthodox-to-heterodox, to the other really fascinating (…ie, say, from the ‘nacle totems of Bookslinger’s post-his-initial-conversion inactivity/name removal from records to John Hamer’s self-idenitification as a schismatic from puberty/albeit sufficiently active/faithful to matriculate at “the Wye”……).


Aaron Brown
April 9, 2009

Nice.


John Mansfield
April 9, 2009

“Where I come from, outing someone’s anonymous alias is a huge no-no.”

When I was a little boy, I lived someplace like that too, a public housing project with a number of fugitive lowlifes. Revealing someone else’s identity, exposing him to outstanding arrest warrants, was hugely frowned upon in such social circles. Thankfully, bulldozers levelled that place a few years back.


Marc
April 9, 2009

Kaimi – Appreciate your post here. It’s difficult to have allegations of these sort aired so publicly and find a tactful way to respond. I’m grateful for the chance to fellowship with you in the bloggernacle and am glad you’re a member of the Church.


Eric Nielson
April 9, 2009

Q. Why did you use a ‘handle’ at all?

Q. Are not some aspects of Mormonism (like ordinances) necessarily exclusive?

Anyway, I thank both Adam and Kaimi for being open about this. It is sorta fascinating at times.


Bridget Jack Meyers
April 9, 2009

Straw Man John Mansfield ~ So let me get this straight: people with honest issues with the church’s teachings are fugitives and criminals in your eyes who have no right to anonymity while working through their questions?

I sincerely hope I’m reading you wrong.


MadChemist
April 9, 2009

It’s really funny that I hear the same people condemn conservatives that they disagree with for using anonymous handles, and then also condemn others for outing someone’s anonymous handle.
Just a little consistency would be nice…


John Mansfield
April 9, 2009

Bridget Jack Meyers, I’m the one getting straight or not that you come from someplace where people use anonymous aliases.


Bridget Jack Meyers
April 9, 2009

I’m confused, MadChemist. When have I ever condemned someone for using an anonymous handle?

My only rules with anonymous handles are “no sock puppetry” and “be consistent.” I don’t like people using aliases to pretend there’s a completely different person out there somewhere backing them up, and I don’t like people changing aliases to try and get away from embarrassing things they said under another alias. I’m also not a big fan of people spontaneously creating a new identity solely for the purpose of smearing someone else by name.

Beyond that, I have no problem with Internet aliases and anonymity in general.


John Mansfield
April 9, 2009

Maybe instead of a U.S. public housing project, you lived somewhere more picturesque, like that Italian village in Foucalt’s Pedulum where the boy was slapped and admonished to never give out names.


Kaimi
April 9, 2009

I’m grateful to Adam and the chance to post this on his board. Other than identifying me as aloysius miller, I agree with everything this smart and articulate guest poster has to say. And I suppose a joke like that is understandable, since I did after all make Adam drink the hemlock.

Thanks for the support, Jack. It’s too bad I didn’t know you earlier — though I guess that would have required me going to the Y, so I’m also glad it didn’t happen. :P

Eric,

First, because that’s the community norm over there. Everyone is an alias of some sort. And I was arguing with them and being boisterous, and besides it was fun that they didn’t know who I was. (There was lots of guessing, some of it correct and much of it way off base).

And second, I don’t know. I accept the possibility that God has other avenues to salvation. I’m not going to tell
Him what or what not to do. In general, I think that God is much, much bigger than the Mormon framework. The Mormon framework is one way to approach God, absolutely. But there are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in our theology.

John M.,

I get it. There are both good and bad uses of anonymity. I agree with that general point.

Is that the end of it, or are you suggesting that my own use was in line with mafioso thugs?

And you Mad Chemist, stop using an anonymous handle! You’re just like a big mafioso named Guido, man.


Bridget Jack Meyers
April 9, 2009

John Mansfield ~ Bridget Jack Meyers, I’m the one getting straight or not that you come from someplace where people use anonymous aliases.

Well, yeah, it’s called teh Intarweb. :P Particularly on the World of Warcraft forums, it was always considered low to “out” someone’s level 1 troll identity by announcing who their level 80 main was. There is a certain level of honor among jobless, sexless, foul-mouthed MMORPG’ers which apparently doesn’t exist in the Bloggernacle.

But in all seriousness, there are plenty of scenarios in real life where anonymity is called for. Special prayer requests, women who contact pregnancy crisis centers for help, and rape victims are all examples. I don’t grudge Kaimi or anyone else who feels that they must use an alias to discuss things in the church which they’re struggling with. Secret things are not always bad things. I would expect Mormons of all people to understand that.


queuno
April 9, 2009

Some of us just don’t like having potential employers googling our name and finding posts that we’ve commented on. But those of who use a handle strictly to thwart search engines are free to email us privately and know our real name…


Kaimi
April 9, 2009

Wait, I thought queuno *was* your real name. I even named a goldfish after you.


Tom
April 9, 2009

I thought the Cafeteria Mormon thing was old news. Apparently not everyone secretly enjoyed reading the Snarker from time to time.


John Mansfield
April 9, 2009

My main point is to mock the notion of the internet as someplace people come from. What I really want is more posts by Pecos Bill. I like his choice of topics and love his writing style.


Geoff B
April 9, 2009

Kaimi, I don’t think we will ever agree on the purpose of Church-related blogging, and we have some pretty strong disagreements on politics, but I would like to sincerely congratulate you for handling this situation with tremendous grace. It cannot have been easy for you to have such discussions aired so publicly, but your response has been charitable and kind. So, for that, you deserve some high praise.


Adam G.
April 9, 2009

John Mansfield,

Pecos B. is out fixing fences.


Mommie Dearest
April 9, 2009

If Kaimi is a cafeteria mormon, can we call Adam a drama queen?
And if we all have a bit of cafeteria mormon-ness in our souls, don’t we also each have a touch of drama queenity as well?


danithew
April 9, 2009

I think the ‘cafeteria-mormon’ connection to Kaimi was not all that much of a secret. Maybe a year ago (or more?) someone (not Adam) mentioned to me privately that it was a strong possibility that Kaimi was writing under that pseudonym.

I wasn’t surprised by the possibility and it didn’t bother me all that much – mostly because I’m too busy and lazy to worry that much about who posts random x comments at x site.

Anyways, it’s all been very interesting to see it aired in public all the same and to read Kaimi’s explanations of his feelings on the subject.

Junior Ganymede seems to have stepped up the humor, which is fine with me. I like funny Adam much more than serious Adam.


Brian Duffin
April 9, 2009

All of this secrecy and dishonesty is too much for me!!

Kaimi- If you won’t tell the truth, then you leave me no choice…

The real reason Kaimi moved to California was NOT to teach law school. Nope! Kaimi is actually training to be a “hotdogger” and drive the Oscar Meyer Weiner mobile.

There, I said it! The truth is finally out. Sorry, Kaimi. Someone had to say it.


Eric Russell
April 9, 2009

John C,

This is actually more interesting than General Conference and all the Mormon nerd conventions combined. I recommend you open comments on the topic at BCC so everyone can join the discussion.


Guy Murray
April 9, 2009

Geoff B:

Kaimi, I don’t think we will ever agree on the purpose of Church-related blogging, and we have some pretty strong disagreements on politics, but I would like to sincerely congratulate you for handling this situation with tremendous grace. It cannot have been easy for you to have such discussions aired so publicly, but your response has been charitable and kind. So, for that, you deserve some high praise.

Ditto. 100% Kudos to you Kaimi.


Ray
April 9, 2009

Thanks, Kaimi, for your response.

I converse with a lot of people who see things as you do, and they definitely qualify as “faithful” Mormon in my mind – especially since “faith” is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. If that is the root definition of faith, then, by default, what is not seen is going to take various forms for those who don’t see – and all of us see through our glass, darkly. Persevering through that darkly lit life is the true mark of “faith”, imo, and I think we all should cut each other way more slack than we generally do.

I understand Adam’s concern, and I appreciate his integrity in standing for what he believes, but I also understand your perspective and appreciate your integrity, as well. Joseph Smith said, “It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine” (History of the Church, 5:340) – and that is true of all of us as we construct our own FAITH in what we can’t see (and err along the way).

Anyway, thanks again for posting this.


Palad
April 9, 2009

When did ‘cafeteria Mormon’ replace the word ‘apostate’? The truth is absolute, even though our understanding of it may not be. But if you cannot accept the fullness of the gospel as revealed to the Lord’s chosen servants , then it seems to me you have made it plenty clear whose side you are on. Your personal likes or dislikes are irrelevant. You either suck it up and toe the line, believing that God has appointed certain men to orchestrate things, or you go find someplace else to be. Remember, the Church is not a democratic, voice-of-the-people, everybody’s-opinion-matters type of thing. It’s a top-down, authoritarian, God’s-in-charge type of thing.

The Welsh sailor Dan Jones, after a test by Joseph Smith in which the Prophet pretended to be drunk, said something along the lines of ‘I’d rather have a sober prophet than a drunk one, but he’s been called of God and I’ll follow him regardless.’ Well, I for one will follow the church as established, and trust that the Lord will work out any problems as He sees fit, since he’s the one in charge. When we start thinking that we should ‘advise the brethren’ on the path the church needs to take, we are on the path to apostasy, regardless of whatever else we may feel like calling it.


John Mansfield
April 9, 2009

By the way, Brother Wenger’s reading of my reference to Umberto Eco’s novel is a bit of unfortunate, ugly ethnic stereotyping. I wrote “Italian village,” and he thought “Mafia,” as if The Godfather is the only possible storyline involving an Italian village. There is no organized crime in Foucalt’s Pendulum.


Sam B.
April 9, 2009

Thanks Kaimi.

I don’t know Kaimi, but he once took extensive time out of his day to give me career advice, based solely on our religious connection (and, to a lesser extent, alma mater and mutual friends). He was generous both with his time and with his advice. That makes him the type of person I’m grateful that so many Mormons are–willing to help on only the most tenuous connection.

I doubt I agree with him about everything. Heck, I don’t agree with myself about anything. But I’m glad he is a brother in the Gospel.

(I’d say the same things about Adam, but he’s never helped me out.)


Sam B.
April 9, 2009

Make that I don’t agree with myself about *everything*.


Adam G.
April 9, 2009

Ironically illustrating the point.


DavidH
April 9, 2009

Adam and Kaimi. You are two of my favorite bloggers. I realize now this was all a calculated episode to increase participation and readership and to start a new blog (will advertising be far behind?). Best wishes to each of you.


danithew
April 9, 2009

I read Sam B.’s comment and felt a little bit bad because my earlier comment on this thread didn’t make mention of the fact that I’ve appreciated Kaimi’s willingness to be helpful and I had the pleasure of meeting up with him and his wife (and some other bloggers) when he came back to visit NYC at one point. Kaimi is a nice guy and I think he has a charitable spirit, which perhaps should trump any orthodoxy issues people have with him.

I also remember when my wife and I were moving to NYC and we asked Kaimi (who was living in the area at the time) for suggestions and ideas and he was kind enough to respond in a way that took the edge off of many of our anxieties.

Plus, he knows A LOT about cheese.


Stephen M (Ethesis)
April 9, 2009

“no sock puppetry”

Gee, that kind of ruins things.

Other than that, I’ve rather enjoyed this discussion ;)


Bill
April 9, 2009

John M.,

Is it a less ugly stereotyping to portray public housing projects in an unfavorable light? You were the one who introduced the concept of “lowlifes” and to the extent that mafiosi qualify, their presence is at least as plausible in US urban environments as it is is in Italy.

So while Kaimi’s reference to the mafia could have just as easily come from your first comment as your second, or even simply from the general topic of codes of silence, and doesn’t necessarily make any comment on Foucault’s Pendulum, your own characterization of that novel is a little odd. Yes, the book is not about the mafia. But it is entirely about conspiracy theories, crime, and secret societies, real or imagined.


Kent G. Budge
April 9, 2009

You think the idea that men have priesthood and women have motherhood is lame?

Try reading the first eleven or so verses of the book of Abraham, where he’s earnestly seeking the priesthood, and count how many times “father” or “fathers” appears. The priesthood is clearly an institutionalized form of fatherhood.


WillF
April 9, 2009

This could turn out to bethe bloggernaccle’s equivalent of the political schism that’s overtaken the Amalgamated Order of Real Bearded Santas:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1276
(see act three)
Come to think if it, are you and Kaimi real bearded Santas?


Ray
April 9, 2009

Nah, they are the opposite gifts bestowed on all by the benevolent Santa. The real debate is whether or not the recipients benefit from the gift. *grin*


Adam G.
April 9, 2009

Kent G. Budge,
yep, I think that’s pretty clear. And in the heavens, institutionalized motherhood will be the only kind around too.


Bridget Jack Meyers
April 10, 2009

Kent G. Budge ~ You think the idea that men have priesthood and women have motherhood is lame?

Try reading the first eleven or so verses of the book of Abraham, where he’s earnestly seeking the priesthood, and count how many times “father” or “fathers” appears.

Nope. Still lame.


John Mansfield
April 10, 2009

Bill, I think Kaimi’s choice of “Guido” works against your reading. I considered writing “conventional organized crime” instead of just “organized crime,” because as you mention, that novel features organizations galore, most of them imaginary, and some of the things they do are crimes, but it didn’t seem necessary since the two-word term “organized crime” has a conventional meaning that can generally be assumed for the sake of good communication.

And regarding my first post, now you’re drawing assumptions from your own mind. The housing project I lived in when I was six was past the edge of town surrounded by desert, not urban at all. You can read about it if interested (“Nevada and the Killers,” footnote 5). I was referring to someplace I lived, not a stereotype.


Adam G.
April 10, 2009

BJM,
this is a Mormon blog. Mormonism and Mormon doctrines may hurt your precious sensibilities but you’ll have an eternity to get over it. Stow it.


Kent G. Budge
April 10, 2009

“It’s lame” isn’t much of an argument.


Bridget Jack Meyers
April 10, 2009

/agree. It was just an opinion. Discussing it in full would feel like a thread-jack.

Someday (on a more topically-related post) I would not mind discussing your explanation in more detail, Kent, and I promise to be less of a jerk about it when I do.


Josef K
April 10, 2009

Mr. G:

Its rancor like yours from the good members of the LDS Church that have slowly been edging me out over the last several years. Thanks for confirming, once again, how truly arrogant the good priesthood holders of the LDS church are- you’re giving me the balls to actually break free of it. Maybe I won’t go to church again- there are too many people like you who have taken over there. I could deal with the wacky history if it weren’t for the horrible people, dripping with downright meanness.


Adam G.
April 11, 2009

Real men take responsibility for their own actions. When you try to blame your fall on me, the Almighty might cavil. Unfortunately, he might also cavil at your description of me as a good priesthood holder. Kyrie eleison. About the only accuracy in your comment is your observation that I’ve taken over there. With my dual authority as Cub Scout committee chairman for two rural wards I’m practically the Mormon Fuhrer.


msg
April 12, 2009

Josef K.–Please don’t let any one ever upset you to the point that you don’t want to be in Church anymore. We all have a place and belong and if you and others who think like you leave, then we are left with only those members who think alike. The Church needs all of us, like our physical bodies need
all their parts. When arrogance rears its ignorant head, remember “we all are where we are until we have an experience and progress”–and without you being there, those other people ,including you, may not ever have that ‘experience’ they need in order to progress. Remember, our focus is on the Savior and our covenants with Him each Sunday–it’s when we take our eye off Him and focus on fallible ward members–it’s that distraction that causes us
emotional turmoil.
Your
being faithful in keeping your covenants is what matters–don’t let any church member
, especially arrogant ones,keep you from obtaining the real goal of our life here is–endure faithfully to the end and live in Exaltation forever. You belong in the Lord’s Church because it’s His–it isn’t your ward members’ Church. We all belong. I for one have vowed never to give anyone such influence as to stop me from reaching my goal. Why should I let someone I’m not even fond of stop me from living in Celestial glory one day? (They’d win!) That’s cutting off my nose to spite my face! Think about it.


MCQ
April 12, 2009

This is a truly bizarre thread.

[…] late so I’ll go ahead with one of the posts I’ve been thinking about. This one is prompted by this post that was linked from (and is about people associated with) Times and Seasons where Sis. Smith […]


Beurach Ale
April 13, 2009

Look at me, everyone, I’m anti-Mormon.


Rameumptom
April 13, 2009

Adam,
Is this what you planned the new blog for: to give the individuals who were breaking rules on the other blog a voice and hearing? That is really stretching out the hand to the other side. Very Christian of you. Weird, but Christian.
It will definitely boost sales of your upcoming book.


Adam G.
April 13, 2009

Rameumptom,
Not sure what you’re talking about, but yea, being very Christian is what we’re all about. We don’t even call our brother ‘raca’, unless its not Christmas, or Easter.

[…] They did not accurately check the backgrounds of their writers when they were hiring, and so dastardly people got in the midst.  And now that they’ve made their bed, they have to lie in […]


Aloysiusmiller
April 23, 2012

Kaimipono used my avatar for a sock puppet post? Choice indeed.


Aloysiusmiller
April 2, 2014

However did you confuse me for the articulate feminist liberal Kaimipono Wenger? While I am the first to admit that aloysiusmiller is a handle I never say anything with that name that I don’t believe or mean. I am visible professionally under my somewhat uncommon real name so I chose to keep my public comments about LDS topics separated. I challenge anyone to find anything crude, vulgar or defamatory in this name. I first raised ire in the blogger ache by condemning Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid in the same post. That was labelled ad hominem which indicates that one of them must have been posting as a sock puppet since I thought that I could only make an ad hominem attack on someone in the debate. Apparently I don’t know the rules of rhetoric.

In any event, I am an orthodox Mormon (if there is such a thing). I go to church every week, attend the temple regularly, sustain the authorities etc. etc. I also vote Tea Party conservative where possible (but never for the likes of Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum).

I no longer recall what Brother Wenger professes.

Leave a Reply