The Ironic Priesthood

July 14, 2006

A couple of weeks of civil bloggernacle discourse

Filed under: ¿Humor? — thehighpriest @ 2:49 pm

For those of you who have missed the scintillating discussion throughout the Bloggernacle over the past couple of weeks, please allow us to provide you with a handy summary.

Once upon a time there was a sincere seeker of truth, named RoastedTomatoes, who sought to bring a little more civility to discourse on LDS Scholarship. This is his story.

RoastedTomatoes wrote: I think Bro. Midgley made too big of a deal about Palmer’s “Paul Pry” thing. However, a greater fault is, I believe, his tone. Don’t you all think that calling someone’s heartfelt testimony of Christ the Lord “sentimentality about Jesus” is crossing the line? ps. I know what to expect, so I am not letting folks comment on this brief statement.

John W. Redelfs wrote: How dare you malign Midgley? Don’t you understand that he is seeking to restore faith in the Lord’s one true church? What are you, apostate or, even worse, a Sunstone subscriber? I’m telling!

John Dehlin wrote: While he’s off calling all his FARMS/FAIR cronies, I just want to say that the vast majority of apologetic work takes underhanded, drive-by cheapshots. Also, I’m practically an apologist myself. Please be on my show: I want to get more podcast subscribers in Utah County.

Louis Midgley wrote: You are right, Roasted. I messed up with some of the Pry stuff. Also, I think that you display an unfortunate credulity when addressing Palmer’s Pry explanation. More importantly, you are obviously an apostate.

SerenityValley wrote: Hey, I know apostates, I’ve worked with apostates, and my husband, sir, is no apostate.

Daniel Peterson wrote: Hi, I’m the Zodiac Killer. Why won’t people ever listen to my arguments, instead always focusing on the blood on my hands? WWWWHHHHHYYYY?

Dave (of DMI fame) wrote: Man, look at the train-wreck over there. Yeesh!

Guy Murray wrote: I just want to say that I loves me some Midgley and Peterson, yessir. Also, has my paperwork to be adopted by Bro. Welch come through yet?

Louis Midgley wrote: I apologize for calling RoastedTomatoes an apostate. However, I stand by my statement regarding his mother’s propensity for dressing in military footwear.

Daniel Peterson wrote: Howdy, Ed Gein here. Why won’t anyone seriously approach what I have said? Is it the Bowie Knife?

Clark Goble wrote: I think maybe we’re painting with too broad a brush. Ad Hominem isn’t always inappropriate. Humor and Satire can also be appropriate. That said, both can be abused. What do you think we could do to make sure our discourse is uplifting?

DKL wrote: You suck!

Daniel Peterson wrote: Hi, I’m Ted Bundy. What is this sucking of which you speak? Prove it, pretty boy! Also, you’re ugly.

Matt Elggren wrote: This is apologetics. Behold, the violence inherent in the system, THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!

John Fowles wrote: Are you all mad? Don’t you know that Nibley entered this life fully formed, emerging from a blooming lotus blossom on a still pool? Don’t you know John Gee descended to earth directly from heaven? Don’t you know that Richard Anderson didn’t die, but rather rode a chariot of fire into the sky? that Jack Welch is my father-in-law? that Daniel Peterson is Bel-Shamharoth, the Soul Eater? (Seriously, don’t cross that guy) They would never, ever, ever, ever, eva, sink to the level of anti-Mormons in terms of writing hateful prose and snarky asides, nuh uh. Matt Elggren, apologetics isn’t what you say it is.

Matt Elggren wrote: well, if you read what I wrote you would see that in context “this is apologetics” doesn’t actually mean “this is apologetics”. It meant “HELP, HELP! I’M BEING OPPRESSED!” Sheesh, don’t you people understand English?

Daniel Peterson wrote: Hi, I’m the dark lord Satan himself, Beelzebub, Lucifer, Voldemort, Hitler, ya know, the whole deal. Why is everyone focusing on me? What about the issues? WILL NO ONE THINK OF THE ISSUES?

Clark Goble wrote: Guys, calm down! I just wanted to have a nice civil discussion about civility in LDS scholar…you know what? Forget it. You suck!

And so it goes…



  1. Hilarious! Thanks for this comic relief in this whole soap opera.

    Comment by john f. — July 14, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

  2. (some of your links are broken)

    Comment by john f. — July 14, 2006 @ 4:16 pm

  3. I’m glad you liked it. I’ll try and get the links fixed.

    Comment by thehighpriest — July 14, 2006 @ 4:19 pm

  4. Hey . . .you guys are great–way better than the snarknidiot. Well done. btw. . . .the adoption papers have now gone through. 😉

    Comment by Guy Murray — July 14, 2006 @ 4:25 pm

  5. Indeed. Truely hilarious.

    Comment by J. Stapley — July 14, 2006 @ 4:27 pm

  6. Okay, all links should be fixed now. Let me know if there are further problems.

    Comment by thehighpriest — July 14, 2006 @ 4:37 pm

  7. What? No mention of fondue????

    Comment by a random John — July 14, 2006 @ 4:49 pm

  8. Um, I rudely interrupted my own fondue party with George Smith and the Tanners by stopping to write this post about Midgley. Additionally, chupacabra!

    Comment by thehighpriest — July 14, 2006 @ 5:02 pm

  9. […] There’s a new Irony in the ‘nacle folks, with a pretty funny post about all the past week’s primary discourse.  While it’s a tad early to tell . . .if the first post is a pattern of things to come they’ll be light years ahead of their competition.   […]

    Pingback by Messenger and Advocate » New Blog On The ‘Nacle — July 14, 2006 @ 5:04 pm

  10. boy, what you miss out on…..

    Comment by Dan — July 14, 2006 @ 5:30 pm

  11. Hear, hear…brilliant! Just further proof that it doesn’t matter what you think you said but only what was heard. I’ll take responsibility for that.

    Comment by Matt Elggren — July 14, 2006 @ 8:34 pm

  12. Well done.

    Comment by Eric Nielson — July 14, 2006 @ 9:15 pm

  13. […] The Smackdown in Utah, or as The Ironic Priesthood has titled it, A couple of weeks of civil bloggernacle discourse. […]

    Pingback by raincoaster » Mormons Amok!!! — July 16, 2006 @ 2:49 am

  14. Amazing what you find by visiting the Snark.

    Now you need a blogroll and sidebar links. A webring of LDS humor …

    Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 16, 2006 @ 12:27 pm

  15. Okay, that was so funny.


    Comment by fMhLisa — July 18, 2006 @ 5:00 am

  16. But where, oh where, are the SNAKES ON A PLANE!?

    Comment by Equality — July 18, 2006 @ 4:24 pm

  17. You failed to make mention of my seduction of that sexy beast, John Redelfs, in the Iron Rod thread. You will pay for your sins of omission.

    Comment by Prudence McPrude — July 18, 2006 @ 6:18 pm

  18. Dear Prudence . . . his failure was only a natural consequence of yours 😉

    Comment by Guy Murray — July 19, 2006 @ 7:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: