Who is a greater threat to Mormonism?

[wuapinmon]

I'm not asking about the greatest threat. I'm asking which is greater. You think it's a tie?

SU faithfully attacks in almost every thread with reasoned arguments stemming from intricately segued tangents that allow him to make his point, but the result is that no one takes him seriously. Sooner wallops us with his matrimonial conventicles of subverting the Mormon curates from within.

But Robin, Robin rarely criticizes the Church. He talks fondly of how he loved it, what he used to believe, how he felt when he believed. He still hangs around and makes friends with everyone and doesn't criticize their faith. Robin is a model apostate. And THAT is precisely why he's the greatest threat to Mormonism extant: the genial apostate.

[Sullyute]

that's what I thought. I was expecting BKP's list of homosexuals, feminists and "so-called scholars or intellectuals." Now there's a threat to the church

Not to thread jack but I just read that talk last night. I couldn't believe it was given in the nineties. The story at the very first is unbelievable, about B.K.P becoming head of the seminary program and H.B.L telling him that he needed to choose whether he would face toward (represent the interests of) the students and seminary teachers or face toward the breathern... and that some of his predecessors had faced the wrong way. I am glad to know as a seminary student someone was looking out for my best interests...

[byu71]

Not to thread jack but I just read that talk last night. I couldn't believe it was given in the nineties. The story at the very first is unbelievable, about B.K.P becoming head of the seminary program and H.B.L telling him that he needed to choose whether he would face toward (represent the interests of) the students and seminary teachers or face toward the breathern... and that some of his predecessors had faced the wrong way. I am glad to know as a seminary student someone was looking out for my best interests...

I am lost. How could the intestests of the students and seminary teachers be different than that of the brethern? Sounds like something Bronco might say when it comes to dealing with the fans. Maybe he is GA material.

On a side note, was HBL a democrat. Being from Brigham, BKP is probably a democrat. Remember, they believe the few are smarter than the majority and should make all the decisions for them. I think it is there political influence that made them think that way.

[CJF]

I voted SU because he has BCS money sponsoring him now. Sky is the limit on the destruction he can administer.

Truth be told, SU has made me self examine my beliefs a time or two. Sooner, you just make me laugh.

[WashingtonCoug]

I picked Sooner, because he's too damned good looking.

[wally]

SC's next bishop. That guy will really have to do something special to top his predecessors.

This is an excellent point. I think that you both owe it to the board to find a way to get him into your ward.

[Jeff Lebowski]

SU faithfully attacks in almost every thread with reasoned arguments stemming from intricately segued tangents that allow him to make his point, but the result is that no one takes him seriously. Sooner wallops us with his matrimonial conventicles of subverting the Mormon curates from within.

But Robin, Robin rarely criticizes the Church. He talks fondly of how he loved it, what he used to believe, how he felt when he believed. He still hangs around and makes friends with everyone and doesn't criticize their faith. Robin is a model apostate. And THAT is precisely why he's the greatest threat to Mormonism extant: the genial apostate.

The correct answer for genial apostate is Jarid in Cedar.

[jay santos]

SU, because he proselytizes.

[Sullyute]

Being from Brigham, BKP is probably a democrat.

...the party of gays, feminists, and intellectualls?!...

[wuapinmon]

The correct answer for genial apostate is Jarid in Cedar.

Jeff, some people will say that you're accusing the Notorious JIC too quickly there. Let us ask ourselves a simple question: In the CUF of 2010, what would be the result of a non-ideological, objective approach to JIC's "genialty?" Probably something like, "Jeff Lebowski is accusing the JIC too hastily, without proper argument, so let us take a cool, sober look and see if the JIC is really praiseworthy or not; let us see if there is some truth in the qualities listed for him.' Is it really necessary to add that such an approach would merely confirm Lebowski's so-called 'unconscious JIC positivism' via multiple rationalizations? The proper answer to a pro-JIC as a genial apostate is to state that "Apostates are not really like that, not really that genial," but the pro-Apostatic idea of Genial has nothing to with Apostates; the ideological figure of JIC is a way to stitch up the inconsistency of our own ideological system.

That is why we are unable to shake so-called ideological positivism by taking into account the pre-ideological level of everyday experience. The basis of this argument is that the ideological construction always finds its limits in the field of everyday experiences--that it is unable to reduce, to contain, to absorb and annihilate this level.

Let us again take a typical Cuffer's reaction to a Genial Apostate. He is bombarded by pro-JIC propaganda, depicting the JIC as a genial fellow, the incarnation of amicability and mellowness, and so on. But when he reads JIC's posts about his struggles, he sees the same thing, only he wishes that JIC would just come back to church and stop wrangling over intangibles of faith and proof and so on. He feels that JIC is a good guy to chat with, with "proof" of his geniality all over; but, he is blinded, for the ticklish question, the niggling doubt remains. It is then that the pro-Apostatic ideology has not really grasped us. An ideology is really 'holding us' only when we do not feel any opposition between it and reality--that is, when the ideology succeeds in determining the mode of our everyday experience of reality itself (as much as CUF can be called 'reality').

How then do we know if JIC is really genial? We ask ourselves "how all that we've seen can be true if we feel otherwise?" The response streaks blindingly through our mind's eye as it dawns on us that THAT is precisely why we have to be careful about JIC's insidious genial act. It is this hiding of his actual nature that makes it difficult, his bald-faced duplicity that makes him intrinsically evil and dangerous.

An ideology really succeeds when even the facts which at first sight contradict it start to function as arguments in its favor. With a massive massive debt to Zizek.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Jeff, some people will say that you're accusing the Notorious JIC too quickly there. Let us ask ourselves a simple question: In the CUF of 2010, what would be the result of a non-ideological, objective approach to JIC's "genialty?" Probably something like, "Jeff Lebowski is accusing the JIC too hastily, without proper argument, so let us take a cool, sober look and see if the JIC is really praiseworthy or not; let us see if there is some truth in the qualities listed for him.' Is it really necessary to add that such an approach would merely confirm Lebowski's so-called 'unconscious JIC positivism' via multiple rationalizations? The proper answer to a pro-JIC as a genial apostate is to state that "Apostates are not really like that, not really that genial," but the pro-Apostatic idea of Genial has nothing to with Apostates; the ideological figure of JIC is a way to stitch up the inconsistency of our own ideological system.

That is why we are unable to shake so-called ideological positivism by taking into account the pre-ideological level of everyday experience. The basis of this argument is that the ideological construction always finds its limits in the field of everyday experiences--that it is unable to reduce, to contain, to absorb and annihilate this level.

Let us again take a typical Cuffer's reaction to a Genial Apostate. He is bombarded by pro-JIC propaganda, depicting the JIC as a genial fellow, the incarnation of amicability and mellowness, and so on. But when he reads JIC's posts about his struggles, he sees the same thing, only he wishes that JIC would just come back to church and stop wrangling over intangibles of faith and proof and so on. He feels that JIC is a good guy to chat with, with "proof" of his geniality all over; but, he is blinded, for the ticklish question, the niggling doubt remains. It is then that the pro-Apostatic ideology has not really grasped us. An ideology is really 'holding us' only when we do not feel any opposition between it and reality--that is, when the ideology succeeds in determining the mode of our everyday experience of reality itself (as much as CUF can be called 'reality').

How then do we know if JIC is really genial? We ask ourselves "how all that we've seen can be true if we feel otherwise?" The response streaks blindingly through our mind's eye as it dawns on us that THAT is precisely why we have to be careful about JIC's insidious genial act. It is this hiding of his actual nature that makes it difficult, his bald-faced duplicity that makes him intrinsically evil and dangerous.

An ideology really succeeds when even the facts which at first sight contradict it start to function as arguments in its favor. With a massive massive debt to Zizek.

[YOUTUBE]E2y40U2LvKY[/YOUTUBE]

[RobinFinderson]

Wow! Lebowski, I think you might have just been owned, but I can't be sure.

Actually, wuap, Lebowski is one of exactly two people with whom I have had some PM flame wars with, during which I was not 'genial,' so he has some legitimate cause to disagree

Also, wuap, I think we can all agree that JIC's geniality is an "insideous genial act... hiding his actual nature... bald-faced duplicity... intrinsically evil and dangerous." I mean that is just obvious to everyone except for Lebowski.

[SeattleUte]

It's unseemly Sooner has himself in this poll. Clearly a majority of voters are making him feel good. I always hear how nice Mormons are, and here's proof.

[wuapinmon]

Wow! Lebowski, I think you might have just been owned, but I can't be sure.

Actually, wuap, Lebowski is one of exactly two people with whom I have had some PM flame wars with, during which I was not 'genial,' so he has some legitimate cause to disagree

Also, wuap, I think we can all agree that JIC's geniality is an "insideous genial act... hiding his actual nature... bald-faced duplicity... intrinsically evil and dangerous." I mean that is just obvious to everyone except for Lebowski.

The scary thing is that if you ask JIC if he is evil, he'll tell you "no." What more proof do we need?

[wuapinmon]

It's unseemly Sooner has himself in this poll. Clearly a majority of voters are making him feel good. I always hear how nice Mormons are, and here's proof.

Look at Seattle trying to copy JIC; how cute!