| 17 comments ]

Justin, over at the Mormon Wasp, a blog that has pretty much nothing to do whatsoever with its alleged namesake, has discovered President Hinckley has recycled an old talk from a 1977 General Conference for December's First Presidency message, with some editing to bring it up to date. While neither Justin nor any of the commenters have had the guts to explicitly say it, preferring instead to beat around the bush, its pretty obvious what they are all insinuating, without ever actually saying it, lest someone take them to task. Nothing like maintaining plausible deniability.

Nevermind not one of these whining slackers have accomplished, traveled, taught, spoken or written one tenth of what this guy does in one year, in his nineties no less, in their entire lives. Hey, it says that after I get the beam out of my own eye, then I can pick at motes in other people's eyes, right? If thats the best you can do guys, you got nuthin.

17 comments

NFlanders said... @ November 21, 2005 at 7:00 AM

What, we can't snark on the Prophet? You don't deserve the title of Snarkernacle if you're going to be such a wuss.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ November 21, 2005 at 7:13 AM

Um, Ned, you guys are not snarking him. There is nothing snarky there. Perhaps Kim's comment might be snarky, but thats it. So what is your excuse?

Steve EM said... @ November 21, 2005 at 7:56 AM

Common guys. Y'all know GBH prefers to be call "President of the Church", not "the Prophet". Let's hope future Presidents of the church are as wise.

NFlanders said... @ November 21, 2005 at 8:59 AM

I think SN is in an awfully testy mood today. Anyway, so we're allowed to snark on the "President" but not insinuate that he can't be bothered to hire a ghostwriter to come up with some new material? I just want to know what the rules are.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ November 21, 2005 at 9:05 AM

Um, Ned, the rule is you have to snark someone in order to be considered "snarking". Badmouthing someone by innuendo doesn't qualify as "snarking". Snarking is supposed to be funny/sarcastic/amusing. Just badmouthing someone is none of those things. Got it?

And what is this about being in a bad mood? Sheesh!

NFlanders said... @ November 21, 2005 at 9:19 AM

So as long as it's funny, it's okay? So noted.

I said that you were testy because someone left a nasty comment over at DMI, very much in the same vein as this post. It is a very odd stance for a snarker, IMO.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ November 21, 2005 at 9:44 AM

Odd stance for a snarker? You need to branch out and explore more alternatives to your current hypothesis, Cherchez la femme.

a random John said... @ November 21, 2005 at 11:25 AM

Snarkette,

What is the implicit message? That a talk delivered in the seventies would be touched up a bit before being republished today? Like this isn't rubbed in our faces twice a month anyhow with the Teachings of the Prophets books. Is it bad to examine what the changes are?

Snarkimus Prime said... @ November 21, 2005 at 11:29 AM

Come on now, A Random John, you know better than that. Don't play Mr. ObjectiveImpartialDetachedStrictlyAnalytical with me.

a random John said... @ November 21, 2005 at 11:39 AM

No seriously, what is Justin getting at in your opinion? The Mormon Wasp is usually frustratingly free of opinion. It simply presents information rather than commentary. Now you might say that the commentary is in the selections of the information that Justin presents, but I don't see how comparing two versions of the same talk is so terrible. I will admit that I got bored and didn't read the whole thing. Maybe it got interesting. Should I go back and search for scandal?

Snarkimus Prime said... @ November 21, 2005 at 12:05 PM

Yeah, its the comments.

Steve EM said... @ November 21, 2005 at 1:23 PM

Snarkey,

Is your point that some commenters are thinking GBH is suffering the fates of Presidents Kimball and Benson, but they are too cowardly to come out in say it? If that’s it, I just don’t get your beef. The commenters (if that’s what they’re thinking) show good taste, and you get upset about it? We’re all going to die of something. For some, the brain fails first. What would be the purpose of pointing out a natural phenomenon like that?

Now, one of my beefs is our lack of a retirement tradition for Apostles that would solve many problems, but that is a separate issue.

Kim Siever said... @ November 23, 2005 at 8:46 AM

Oh, now I'm the SchmoozMeister and a snarker. It just keeps getting better.

a random John said... @ November 23, 2005 at 9:00 AM

I must admit that I completely missed any insinuation and now the page appears to be gone so I can't go back and find it. Such a poor reader am I!

Snarkimus Prime said... @ November 23, 2005 at 11:32 AM

I admit it may have been more perceived than real, but Ned admits he was being snarky as does Kim. Kim's comment was himself wondering aloud whether or not Hinckley or his secretary was the one who made the revisions.

Regardless, I do find it entertaining that Mr. Butterfield changed the blurb under his blog title away from the Mormon Wasp reference. Was the Snarkernacle the cause of this? We blush to think we have any influence whatsoever over the Nacle.

a random John said... @ November 23, 2005 at 3:06 PM

Yeah Snarker, like you aren't as deeply connected as any of the BoHers

Snarkimus Prime said... @ December 1, 2005 at 8:00 AM

I deny any connection whatseover to any of the BOHers at all. "I have not had sex with that woman".

Also, Mr. Butterfield has once again changed the blurb on his blog back to what it was originally, that it was supposed to be something like the original Mormon Wasp. Kewl, Mr. Butterfield is a Snarkernacle reader, and it reactionarily so! Thanks, Justin! You rock!

Post a Comment