Brother Barker wrote back. No surprise, of course. Unfortunately, what this means is that I will now be engaged of months and months worth of circular logic, where no one wins, Bro. Barker derisively attempts to discredit me by making me appear foolish, bitter, vindictive and mentally handicapped, and I get a terrible headache. See folks? See why former Mormons cannot leave the CHURCH ALONE? It (in the form of its many believing members) will NOT leave us alone. Please remember that I did not write Brother Barker. He wrote me. All of this blogging I do is because people WRITE ME.
Natalie, Natalie, Natalie,
As expected from thousands of pieces of correspondence over the years, you follow the same sorts of nonsense, i.e., you seem to find it difficult to follow an argument.
Stanley, dear, I have NEVER sent you thousands of pieces of correspondence. Must be another Natalie. Do you have a stalker? Why, you claimed to have not even received the ONE email I sent you in reply to YOUR email to me.
And who is having an argument? You didn’t like my review of Martha’s book. You ain’t the first, and you won’t be the last. Oh well.
1. I commented on the hairdo thingy to show that what YOU made an issue of was an non-issue. IOW, you wouldn’t have mentioned it if you hadn’t thought it somehow important to demonstrate that this displays a Mormon mindset.
I put the “hairdo thingy” in there as an EXAMPLE of what Martha’s major critics were jumping on to try and discredit her. And my review PLAINLY states that. I probably wouldn’t have paid it much attention, had it not been screamed about (quite loudly) from the many Mormons I know. I didn’t mention it to prove anything. I MENTIONED it because the Mormons were mentioning it, blowing it out of proportion. Why, it IS the one thing you jumped on yourself, wasn’t it? I notice you didn’t address the Danite claims, or the repressed memories. What does that tell you, hmmmm? “Let’s make Martha look silly by talking about the haircut.” It’s just the sort of thing her father was VERY good at.
My comments, which are really quite clear to be understood, say, “nonsense.” It is an anecodotal tale (true or false) that has no real bearing on the rest of millions of people that you condemn with this one simple story. As I (meaning me) pointed out, for all to read, “who cares what some hairstylist did or said in Utah Valley?”
Who am I condemning with a simple story? I didn’t write the story. When one reviews a book, one SHOULD actually talk about what is IN the book. Did you miss that somewhere? Were you expecting me to review Martha’s book and not mention what it was about? THAT would have been interesting. And are there really millions of people living in Utah County? I must bone up on my Utah demographics. It must be really crowded down there. No wonder you’re so cranky. It’s elbow to bunghole with Mormons. As for the “who cares” comment, that’s your take on it. Obviously, Mormons do CARE, because so many of them point it out. Oh, and Martha’s book sales prove others care, too. Obviously, you care too, because you are pretty miffed about it.
And my comments came from your “short” review from the page you link to. I guess our definitions of long and short differ dramatically. I have not seen your comments about Beck’s book on your blog. Moreover, I have never received any e-mail from you either.
As do our definitions of many other things. I sent the email. No idea why you didn’t get it. I’m sure you’re heartbroken.
And I suppose you are right. I do have an agenda, unlike some bloggers I know. My agenda is to help people to see through the nonsense that people, who love to opine, put out as truth.
Holy crap, Stanley. Are you KIDDING me? Are you REALLY trying to cut me down with this shit? First of all, you don’t KNOW me from Adam, Eve, or Brigham Young. As for your agenda, listen up. You want to tell the world you believe the LDS Church is true, go for it. But I have the same right. Sorry that my view differs from yours, but that’s the way it goes. If we were all the same, it’d be a mighty boring place to live, wouldn’t it? I find much that is harmful to people in Mormonism, just like YOU think there is much that is good.
It is more than just a little interesting to see the many criticisms of the LDS Church, have them answered, yet never see the critics really address the multitude of evidences for the LDS Church.
What evidence? People believe it, so that makes it true? Please. You sure haven’t offered me any evidence. You just wrote to complain about my review, REMEMBER? Geez, you act like we’ve known each other forever, and I’m ignoring all the truth you are handing me. I didn’t even know you EXISTED until I got your email yesterday.
What do you do with those? Well, if one follows your approach to things, then one merely dismisses all of that evidence nonsense as eyewash, wihtout ever dealing with them.
As I said, to each their own.
Well, if I actually SAW them, I might address them. But see, that’s the funny thing. I don’t see them.
You are summarily dismissing me without even knowing me. By the way, Stan, for someone who doesn’t read my blog, you sure purport to know a lot about me and what I believe. You have no knowledge of my “approach to things.” I suspect you want another name to add to your bio at SHIELDS, as one of those “critics” you have chased off. Amusingly enough, I see no evidence that you have done ANY of the things you stated in your bio.
This is the last part of Stan’s bio:
Although most acquaintances consider Stan to be a pretty good guy, few critics like him. He has no patience for dishonesty and deception and is often blunt in expressing his feelings about this. When Stan has pointed out weaknesses in critics arguments and their apparent unwillingness to correct those errors, they have often pulled out of conversations with him. Three such cases involved Sandra Tanner, Dick Baer, and Ed Decker. This demonstrated dishonesty bothers Stan. He wishes they would repent so that they too might enjoy the glorious blessings of the Lord’s Kingdom.
Just ‘cuz you say so doesn’t make it so.
I, too, have no patience for dishonesty and deception. I feel only pity for you, though, because I suspect the only person you are being dishonest with is yourself. I’ve had just a taste of your “logic” and I can see why people just stop talking with you, and I doubt it has anything at all to do with the fact that you are right and they are wrong.
See, when one bangs one’s head against a wall long enough, the pain becomes unbearable. One might have to buy stock in the company that makes Tylenol were they to continue in conversations with you.
Readers: the truth is, I bet Stanley really is a nice guy. I bet he cares about people, too. And I have no doubt that he thinks he is fighting for the Lord, and how do you get really angry about that? I don’t particularly like that he wrote me and treated me with arrogance, self-importance and quite dismissively, but he considers me the enemy. I know that. I understand it. See, I suspect he has the best intent at heart. I’ve seen it before. My dad does it.
But Stan? I don’t believe the LDS Church is true. In fact, I think it’s a bunch of hogwash. I promise I researched it before I reached this decision. As for the things I blog on, I think this shit is funny. Somehow, you missed that. I’m not claiming to be the next great LDS scholar, or an exMormon apologist, or anything else.
The bottom line here is I wrote a review you didn’t like. That’s okay. It happens all the time. Don’t make it into more than it is.