The FAIR Conference in Parts: A Failed Documentary

[_moksha]

I think we should all thank Kerry Shirts for providing the raw material for some lively discussion on this forum. It was fun to put faces with names. It is nice to also see that the conference attendees seem to pretty much know one another. Maybe I will attend incognito next year. Anyone care to join me?

[_Ray A]

Maybe I will attend incognito next year. Anyone care to join me?

But if you attend incognito how will I recognise you? Do I look for a man in a penguin suit?

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks for the write-up, cksalmon.

From what you've read, does Ostler contradict the prophets in one or more ways?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'm making my way through volume 1 right now (I have 2 as well).

Ostler (from what I've gathered from volume 1 and numerous Sunstone presentations) is essentially a process-cum-LDS theologian/philosopher who tends to deny certain long-standing LDS beliefs (e.g., the infinite chain of gods in favor of a solitary divine source: God the Father), aplogetically accentuate the finitude of the LDS God (while maintaining that God's superiority and eminence in relation to lesser divine beings: Christ, Holy Spirit, men), and argue for, what seems to me, a merely hypothetical (purely theoretical) understanding of the Trinity in which the Godhead is an emergent entity dependent upon the interpersonal relationships between the three beings.

He assumes his understanding of the "Trinity" avoids the problems associated with classical Trinitarianism, but his solution is at least as theoretical and speculative as anyone else's.

He replaces classical Trinitarianism's dogmatic denials (the Trinity is not this; the Trinity is not that) with a positive statement that relies primarily on his own amalgamation of LDS theology, process philosophy, and an elevation of his own understanding of personal relatedness and its importance in understanding the Godhead.

That's my take, at this point, at any rate.

cks

Interestingly, Ostler provides solid scriptural analysis in addition to use of the words of Joseph Smith in so doing. Sometimes he may give new philosophical titles to certain approaches, but from what I've read so far (vol. 2) he is well within LDS orthodoxy. He essentially argues (very persuasively) against Calvinism.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Can you elaborate LoP? What am I doing, and why is it sad?

And what do you spend your thousands of hours on message boards doing that is either so important, or praisworthy?

Because you spend your time tearing down, mocking, etc. I submit you organize your own group and hold a conference. Let us know how it goes. Maybe I'll show up for some of it.

[_cksalmon]

Thanks for the write-up, cksalmon.

From what you've read, does Ostler contradict the prophets in one or more ways?

Well, he certainly contradicts some. I don't see how one could write modern volumes on LDS theology without doing so.

As I alluded to above, he rejects (without apology) the belief that God the Father is merely one in an infinite chain of divine beings. God the Father is the initial arche for him. That has significant ramifications for his system.

To place it under your rubric, Ostler might be one of the quintessential Internet Mormons. He is not beholden to past prophetic pronouncements, except in such places as they aid his argumentation. He quotes liberally, but only at such places that are useful, at least so far. He appears to be quite insistent on corralling LDS belief within the bounds of process philosophy. This is not to say that he is a direct intellectual descendant of Whitehead or Hartshorne. He's certainly not. Rather, he appears to be in the process (no pun intended) of amalgamating LDS thought and process thought into a viable, logically-rigorous, system of belief.

And he's smart and well-read. (That suit, by the way, was typical lawyer get-up.)

He's the most interesting LDS writer writing, for my money.

I wish I'd never seen him in that suit. I always pictured him as 50-ish, balding, and wearing ultra-conservative clothing.

Perhaps the reality fits the publications in this instance.

cks

[_cksalmon]

He essentially argues (very persuasively) against Calvinism.

I wouldn't agree as to its persuasiveness, but, yes, Calvinism seems to be squarely in his sights.

He ain't a fan. From what I can tell, it's because Calvinism privileges God's sovereignty over man's freedom.

Mormons of Ostler's stripe seem to revel in the utter contingency of their God figure.

cks

[_Mister Scratch]

What a fascinating and insightful write-up. I learned things from this that I never would have noticed from my admittedly casual viewing of the documentary. I am curious, Gad, what you though of that charming interlude/montage which was overlaid with Muzak?

[_Jersey Girl]

I know, I know, his production quality was kinda rough, but he is a nice guy. His humor does take some getting used to, but once you do get used to it, it is addictive

Welcome to the board CT. Yes, I think Kerry is a nice guy. I think his humor is a strong point, and the fact that his humor is genuine and usually good-natured, he is a valuable asset to the apologetic front. But, underneath the surface of an accomplished comedian is a deep seriousness about the humor. Kerry should by all means use the strengths of his personaility in his film work. But I believe he needs to make that transition from "class clown" with a camera to comedian before he will ever produce a successful documentary.

Documentary? What utter tripe. Here, you and others, cherry pick a specific play list on a website without examining the website that contains approx. 470+ videos, the bulk of which are topical and instructive, also including other casual "home videos" and scenic videos and instead of choosing a topical/instructive video and devoting yourself to references, assertions and conclusions, you give superficial treatment to a casual visit to the recent FAIR Conference, calling it a "documentary" (you ass) and use it to criticize the bloody film techniques.

What the hell?

There are oh, I'd say, 465 videos on that website that deal with topical matter including Kerry's instruction on Hebrew and you pull the FAIR Conference out of your ass for a thread like this.

If you told me that this thread was nothing more than a lame joke, I would have no other choice than to believe you.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the monetarily compensated senior apologist Bill Hamblin who is currently doing a lucrative side-job in Oxford.

Yes, he's "monetarily compensated" in the sense that he has a job. Don't you?

Other than that, if you can provide actual figures on the money he's earned for apologetic activities during, say, the past five years, I, at least, would be intrigued by them.

And his (now-concluded) "lucrative side-job in Oxford"? A seminar of the National Endowment for the Humanities:

http://www.utc.edu/Outreach/NEHHolyLand/

A Mopologist plot, no doubt.

we on this forum do not understand Dr. Peterson's sense of humor. We just don't get what a great, noble, and nice fellow he is.

Some here may. But my greatness, nobility, and politesse are, truly, quite remarkable. Maybe nobody here but myself has taken their full measure. And sometimes I doubt whether even I have.

So in part 5, he holds a very lengthy interview with Peterson where it is explained that Peterson softens his disdain for other posters by using irony. Where Peterson's brain is thinking "you idiot, you moron," his fingers type irony. So now, when we read ironic statement after ironic statement from Peterson, we are given the legend from Shirts whereby to make the appropriate insulting substitutions. And this is supposed to make us feel better about Peterson, to make us think Peterson is a "nice guy" and misunderstood, where in reality, the only misunderstanding would be that we might have thought Peterson was just being funny, when really all the time he's holding back a slew of personal insults?!

Really, I'm a vicious brute. My cruelty, unscrupulousness, and depravity are genuinely quite frightening. Maybe nobody here but myself has plumbed them to their depths. And sometimes I doubt whether even I have.