The winds of change are blowing over at Look At All The Books I Read. He’s grasped upon the latest LDS.org statement on the ever popular and controversial issue of Abortion. He compares it to the slightly different statements contained in True To The Faith, finds some slight differences in verbiage, and come to the conclusion the Church’s position on this sensitive and personal issue is shifting.
Yeah, and California is sliding into the ocean at the same pace.
The differences between the two statements are negligible, ones only a lawyer could find. I’m not going to debate the rail splitting here. I simply draw your attention to Dave’s closing statement:
Since these new public statements both explicitly require any LDS teenager or woman to make such a difficult decision "only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders" (quoting the LDS.org statement), it would seem disingenuous for members to be guided by gentler public statements while said local church leader, pulling down his restricted copy of the CHI, reads language that paints anyone consulting them in connection with an abortion decision as the equivalent of a murderer. (Emphasis added)Call me a Snarker, but that’s shooting just a little beyond the mark there, Dave. There’s a big difference between seeking counsel from a Priesthood leader regarding a decision as defining as whether to terminate a life and seeking forgiveness for having terminated one. Your lack of understanding of and respect for what happens when Stake Presidents, Bishops, and Branch Presidents counsel with the affected parties about this decision is truly troubling. But I digress.
On the basis of these more recent statements of LDS leaders, that sort of condemnatory language seems out of step and out of date. (Emphasis added)Out of step and out of date with what? A worldly philosophy which places the “right” of a woman to end the life of a child above nearly everything else?
What is the end hope here? That the Church will ever so slowly slouch toward the Gomorrah Policy of "Anything Goes"? I'm not holding my breath.
25 comments
Well, Anne, at least I haven't had to slip into profanity to express my opinions.
I'm curious though, what led you to believe D. Golden Shizzle was an alias?
AnneGB's comment was deleted because of profanity.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Nice threadjack, Guy. Taking after your mentor I see.
Posting something good for the wrong reason doesn't make your intentions good.
Do it again, and you will banned too, just like your heroes.
Shiz, thanks for the write-up. It's blogs like yours that make America great. Since Snark links are a little scarce these days, I have actually put you back on my "LDS Blogs" list.
I'm sorry . . . I must not have read your comment right . . .you said you were going to ban me for posting the 13th article of faith?. I happen to think Dave's site is lovely, praisworthy, and of good report--providing your readers with a different point of view. Isn't that part of what your site is about . . free discussion and expression of candid ideas?
Guy,
Your original post was ambiguous, and given your past performance here and your antagonistic comments on other blogs over the past couple of days, it is plain what your intention was.
Taking advantage of that ambiguity to now feign good intention is simply disingenuous on your part.
Guy, we don't go trolling onto your blog just because we don't like it. now do we? No. That is what you are doing here. Trolling.
You are banned. Anything you post from now on will be deleted without exception and will be noted for all the Nacle to see.
I apologized on another thread for not minding my own business. I don't apologize for the profanity.
It's really hard to tell someone off without cussing, have you tried it? I did and it came out really stupid.
Butting out now.
Anne:
I've found the substitution of the Korean term "kimchi" to work well for the term which got your comment deleted. If you've ever smelled some good fermented kimchi, you'll understand why.
However, as even chickens can't stand to be found near kimchi, you'll have to find another term in which to couch your tell-offs.
Shiz
I've noticed a trend in Hollywood: people who start as comedians end up wanting to be taken seriously as actors (Robin Williams, Jim Carrey, Tom Hanks, etc.). It seems the same rule applies to bloggers. Make with the funny, Snarker. You're just so earnest of late.
Maybe the snarkernacle should consider focusing more on quality rather than quantity. Maybe only posting twice a week for a while or something until you get your groove back. I'm not saying this to be mean but to help a site that I rather liked in the past that has had a very obvious decline.
Wow this new Snarkey is no more Mr passive resistance. This is one mean mother Snarkey you don't want to mess with. Love it.
Doesn't anybody actually look to see who wrote the post? As much as if flatters me to be referred to as Snarky, its just not so.
is it bad that it took me .001 sec to catch steve em's reference to Gandhi II?
I love your comments. keep them coming. Too many nackles need a good swift kick in the kimichi. Those who don't like you take themselves too seriously. It does help that I have not disagreed with the SnarkerNackle.
You may not be the voice of reason, but you are the voice of the Nacle disinfranchised and silent. I agree there has been more of an edge to the SnarkerNacle posts of late. On the other hand, most of the Nacle is on the edge of respectability. They just don't know it because they are too smug in their superiority and niches.
dgs,
I was addressing my comments to all of you here at the snarkernacle. You've all gone from being a dose of levity to unfunny meanness. Show us some of that earlier cleverness, not school-yard taunts. I know that each of you is capable of it if you try.
a random john,
People who don't contribute, but only criticize, are people we ignore. We cannot magically create a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If you see something snarkworthy, send us an e-mail with a lead line.
People who don't contribute, but only criticize, are people we ignore.
Words to live by.
People who don't contribute, but only criticize, are people we ignore.
The snarkernacle has a very short institutional memory. I am assuming that you are claiming to ignore me based on this short memory. It seems to be so short as to neither remember my correspondence nor the times a short while ago when it was actually funny.
Given your recent track record I am reticent to send anything more in. Show me that you are capable of your former glory and you'll merit serious contribution.
a random john,
Show me your serious contribution and you'll merit our attention.
Assuming you are "John Harrison", the last submission, in February, was a lame link to "large mormons" in Deseret News. Yawn. Wasn't used. Prior to that was a link to FMH's sex talk thread, which we rec'd an awful lot of, and you added no original content. Prior to that was nothing. I guess you consider overweight mormons funny and snarkworthy? Meh.
So, in other words, you have contributed nothing when it come to snark posts. You do comment sometimes on posts. I assume that is what you are heralding as your contributions? Or are you referring to that post on T&S where you and Kaimi propose you have found out the Snarker's IP address at 127.0.0.1? That was funny, but it was at T&S.
Given your track record here, there is no reason we should aspire to your particular standards to obtain your good graces, since doing so would result in nothing useful for us.
If you think you can do better, with your DesNews fluff pieces, start your own blog, and blow us out of the water. I am sure DKL, SKL, Guy Murray and some other SN haters would be happy to submit a lot of really funny stuff to you to post. Since you and Kaimi are tight, maybe you can get Kaimi to guest post there and blog about his failed covert campaign to eradicate the Snaker from the Nacle and how it had absolutely no impact whatsoever on our daily hit count. That would be way funny. At least as funny as large mormons.
John:
The great thing about free agency - if you don't like what I write, don't read it. As for switching from "being a dose of levity to unfunny meanness", I've never claimed to be limited by the bounds of comedy. I don't think anything I said was "mean", only my opinion on the matter.
Again, you continue to ignore the core issue. Throwing mud at me doesn't help, but I understand that you are backed into a corner. Best of luck.
a random john,
How are we backed into a corner? You are the one who comes on here threadjacking and slinging mud. You are doing it more politely than Guy or DKL/SKL, but the intent is the same.
What is the core issue, John? Is it that our quality is down, or is it that we hit someone in the Nacle Nobility too hard after they rabbit punched us, so the Nobility is striking back to silence us? And, since you are in with them, you are against us. If that isn't the core issue, John, then please explain what it is.
It is purely that the quality is down. I had high hopes for the site, given that for a while I found it to be funny and in relatively good taste. As for the backed into a corner, my point there is that rather than respond to the substance of my comments you insist that I don't have any standing to make such comments, and then we spend a few comments discussing whether I've contributed anything or not. Either my comments have merit or they don't but you seem to be more interested in distraction than discussion.
I fail to see how I'm slinging mud, but I'll admit to the threadjack. I certainly hope that I'm not being "inappropriate" on your site. Feel free to delete my comments if you feel that they detract from the good thing you have going here.
john,
How is it not about distraction when people are threadjacking you? You are the fourth in line to do it. And people who don't contribute have no real say in what happens here. That isn't a distraction, that is just reality. Outside voices are just that. None of us internally see any substantive change in anything we are doing here or what is happeneing in the Nacle: same crap, different day.
I don't think quality is down. Frankly, I don't think quality has ever been all that high, so how can it be down? The site is about snarking, not quality. We can only really respond to what the Nacle produces. If the Nacle produces nothing, what are we to snark? Nothing. If the Nacle were full of thoughtful, intelligent, sensitive people, that would kill the SnarkerNacle. And you know what, that would be fine with us. I mean, come on, when was the last time we snarked anyone at Conversation? Never. Why? Because they aren't like FMH, MMW, or TftC. Huh, no way.
We have always done position pieces on stuff people post to the Nacle, and you know what, we are going to keep doing it. People always complain about it, so what? We are equal opportunity snarkers, we hit boths sides. We have always danced around the line that delinates what is good and bad taste, sometimes we step over it, and sometimes we don't. Sorry. We didn't mean to make you cry. But, you know what, come into a room swinging, and you run the risk of leaving with a black eye.
As for the current spate of people who are voicing their discontent at the Snarker's content, it has its origin in one thing only, the Moving post. If it weren't for that, nobody would complaining about anything as far as quality or whatever. So, from our point of view, this isn't a quality issue, its a matter of Nacle politics. And people are lining up based on their politics.
Post a Comment