From My Informant: DCP & Schryver Ordered to Stand Down

[Guest]

Let's see, you just barely read a part of the JoD and now your an expert and "realize what the JoD is all about?

No dude, I interpret voice inflection. Voice inflection exists in texts as well as actual speaking.

Roughly how old are you?

Funny question XD. But you'll have to look around to see, that you will.

How knowledgeable are you about Mormon Doctrine?

Well in certain areas I'm unknowledgeable, yet in others, I see to a completely different level. It's kinda useless to rate me in comparison to other people, because my thought process would be very weird to you.

Not having ever read anything from the JoD before implies that your understandings of Mormon Theology might be fairly limited.

No lol, I've read quotes from the JoD, commentaries about the JoD on both sides of the opinion, arguments both ways,etc. I just never had actually read part of the text directly from it. And you only get so much from quotes that were mined from a story - it's like trying to understand the personality of the person who wrote Harry Potter by only reading the first line. You can't do it. The more you read, the better you understand.

You BIC?

No clue what BIC means.

If no and convert how long have you been a member?

I've been a member throughout my life. However, I didn't have my testimony till about 1 and a half years ago. Went through some tough trials, a testimony resulted. And of course, being an Autistic, once I pass the first barrier, my learning pace accelerates exponentially for a while.

Have you been/do you go to the Temple? Married?

If I told you you would know how old I was. Actually, by responding to this comment, I have probably given that away.

just trying to get a feel of how to weight your comments here.

Don't try and read me based off of one comment. I have many different personalities at different times, and you have to know them all to know me truly. And knowing a person without talking to them is a very useful skill indeed, that it is Rockslider.

Unfortunately, in terms of TAO, it's like having to know about 6 different people at once, depending on his mood, which sometimes changes a few times in the middle of his posts. But yah... lol, probably tmi, but who knows, maybe it'll intrigue you.

[_TAO]

In some ways, Brigham Young thinks like an Autistic...

Sig line, anyone?

Actually it's a compliment to BY from my POV =).

[_TAO]

Part? I think your bias is coming through by basing it on a part. It's just a collection of teachings and such from past leaders of the church.

I had read it paraphrased through others, but not gone to the actual text.

I'm not sure you understand what it is. I see you have picked up the apologetic talking point of quote mining.

Lol, I normally wouldn't have used that term... but considering the tone in it, and the size of the text... I can't consider it anything BUT quote mining. No, I'm not talking about the quotes the other guy used above, I'm talking about the general quotes people like citicing saying 'BY this', 'BY that'. Yes, I was talking on tangent when I was making the quote mining statement.

I would hope that if you are going to use it, don't do like many other apologists like Simon and Bpspace, who thinking just mentioning it wins there point.

Lol, not trying to prove it to anyone, just saying that I didn't realize true-anti's had to look this hard to find quotes to criticize BY with. Again, not referring to the guy who quoted above, I'm going off on tangent.

First you need to understand what it means, and then show how you think the person is quote mining.

Quote mining to me is where a person A) doesn't read the tone of the text a.k.a. misinterprets intent and B) selects obscure pieces of text and classify it to represent the whole.

Again, I was talking about the quotes some anti's post. I now have to appreciate the hard work they put into pouring into the text to try and find obscure quotes and make them sound as condemning as possible.

The same goes for your next talking point of context. If you think someone is using some statement out of context you need to provide what you think is the correct context backing it up.

The context, as I said, is much of the time, I noticed, simply Brigham's thoughts. He had a curiosity to think, wherever his mind took him. A zest for life one could call it, a desire to learn even the obscure. The JoD (his section of it) represents his exploration of ideas in a way.

Actually, I do much of the same thing, which is why I said he thought like an Autistic. Simply a burning curiosity to know. Much like cats have.

I think you are seeing what you want, but many do whether negatively or positively about BY. I think he was very nice in many areas and not so nice in others, which is generally how many of us can be. I know some who treat many very nice while mean to certain others. People are not generally either black or white in this area.

*shrugs* What I have noticed about people in general is that they cannot be 'mean and kind' at the same time in their hearts. Looking at the text, I see his heart is kind, and though some statements he said might seem careless of others (not mean really), they aren't really. Much like me, he simply speaks his mind, and doesn't really intend to offend. Although, like it happens with me, people don't really notice the difference XD.

Again, why I think he thought like an Autistic - he was a black-and-white sorta guy.

I think many can be to biased and think only negative about the man, and other like yourself who are biased as well, and think mainly positive about the man. You have already admitted you don't know enough to make this assessment. I see he can be both, and yes polygamy does have it's dark side.

Na, Themis. Seeing to the heart is enough to see that my positive feeling is justified. I look and see a man much like myself; sometimes just willing to 'spout ideas' so to say, just for the sake of thinking. People make out his comments much more than they truly are.

Yah, polygamy does have it's dark side, but that not be the way the Lord wishes it practiced. And generally, in things where it is so easy to botch-up (marriage in general, actually, fits this category), I find it is best to look to the Lord for example, not humans.

Not really. We just end up confirming with our emotions and feelings most of what we wanted to, and delude ourselves into thinking we just learned something from the spirit of God.

One may think it be delusion Themis, but I do not. I've had times where the Spirit goes against what I want to do. In fact... this happens quite often... and sometimes I don't listen well enough =/.

[_RockSlider]

TAO,

Well I thank you for the answers that you did provide. Based on these answers I assume you are young (to me that is under 25), you only have a few years at best with experience in Mormon doctrine. You are not and have never been married and have no children.

I'm hearing you basically say that your exponential growth experience with Mormonism is basically one that is mostly spiritual, mental and internal with these being enhanced because of the autism with only the minimal of needed reference material which tends to open up for you.

I assume you have never read any of the Pratt brothers works, or BH Roberts, or studied out the likes of the King Follett address or read the Lecture at the Veil. Have you ever studied Joseph Fielding Smiths compilation/book of Joseph Smith's teachings named the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"? Could you expound on the Adam God Theory without having to look it up? Are you familiar with the Second Anointing? These are all rhetorical questions (please do not answer them here), which may be of value to you to understand the audience you are posting to.

You stated:

"but who knows, maybe it'll intrigue you."

Me personally, no. If I have understood and interpreted what you have written on this board so far. I'm more intrigued by individuals with years of rock solid, school of hard knocks experience. Spouses, children, callings, work and much pain with the occasional epiphanies and beautiful days.

Please read this post and see if it helps to explain better what I'm trying to say.

viewtopic.php?p=384420#p384420

Warm fuzzy, feelings/thoughts/insights based on very limited information is a common theme and a red flag for many, even if they are special autistic knowledge/belief. There may be much that you can learn here. I'd suggest approaching it as a student, not a teacher.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I just want to go on record and say Mr. TAO posts in a respectable manner. I appreciate his earnestness, and measured responses.

That said...

Mr. TAO, reading the JoD themselves would be of tremendous value to your Mormonism education. I would follow that up with Talmage to balance out that perspective. Then I would suggest a thorough reading of Jospeh F. Smith & B.H. Roberts followed by Mr. Hugh Nibley (one of the few Mormon scholars to not use a middle initial) in order to understand the transition to apologetics. Once you've muddled around with Mr. Nibley then I'd suggest you take a shot at FAIR. The bottom line is you can sense, or see, a sort of evolution within Mormon theology. Start comparing and contrasting what former prophets and scholars have said to the new ones, and then bounce that off of what is being preached from the pulpit at General Conference, Ensign articles, and approved CES manuals.

It's a big effort, but eventually you'll get what we're talking about.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_MCB]

even if they are special autistic knowledge/belief

Those with autistic spectrum disorders sometimes plead that their differences exempt them from normal behavioral expectations or cognitive processing. Those who have normal and above language skills are fully able to use that compensatory strength to work through issues such as Mormonism. Even Temple Grandin (I would not be surprised if she has Mormon cultural heritage) says that coping with environments in conflict with each other intensifies those autistic characteristics. I presume that cognitive dissonance is therefore a contributing factor, since they are so similar. Look at the cognitive dissonance of a religion that claims to not change its most basic doctrines/beliefs while, in fact, like the title of liberty, it flutters constantly in the wind. Liberty, or intellectual straight-jacket? Contrast past teachings with present ones, and you will realize that the novel 1984, with constant redefining of words and denial of history can be applied very accurately to Mormon culture.

Just think of it. If you can resolve these issues, a painful process, your Asperger's might melt away into something quite manageable.

[_RockSlider]

... (one of the few Mormon scholars to not use a middle initial) ...

I am not familiar with this middle intial thing, please edify me.

I'm afraid I've already captured a mental hickup on this and all I can think of is it must be based on:

Jesus H. Christ.

lol

[_Fionn]

Am I the only one who just can't read a Nomad post without hearing Yosemite Sam in my head?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNFsnZdn ... re=related

[_Themis]

I had read it paraphrased through others, but not gone to the actual text.

That would confirm even more bias. since you are getting the information through extra filters/people.

Lol, I normally wouldn't have used that term... but considering the tone in it, and the size of the text... I can't consider it anything BUT quote mining.

Size of text has nothing to do with quote mining, and tone I think is your bias coming through again. Quote mining is taking text out of context, so you would need to show that a person is doing that. If you followed Darth J and Simon on this you would see that Simon failed to show how Darth was quoting out of context. Of course maybe you could provide some of this text in order to view the evidence.

No, I'm not talking about the quotes the other guy used above, I'm talking about the general quotes people like citicing saying 'BY this', 'BY that'. Yes, I was talking on tangent when I was making the quote mining statement.

There are a lot of people who quote BY on both sides who say this or that that may be wrong.

Lol, not trying to prove it to anyone, just saying that I didn't realize true-anti's had to look this hard to find quotes to criticize BY with. Again, not referring to the guy who quoted above, I'm going off on tangent.

I don't know any rue anti-Mormons, except maybe Ed Decker. It's not hard to find quotes from BY, and there is nothing wrong with any side looking through what he or anyone else has said.

Quote mining to me is where a person A) doesn't read the tone of the text a.k.a. misinterprets intent and B) selects obscure pieces of text and classify it to represent the whole.

Take out the whole and I think you got it. No one can usually quote thw whole, which is why it is called a quote. Doing it to alter the person intent or meaning is quote mining, but you need to provide evidence that a person is doing such.

Again, I was talking about the quotes some anti's post. I now have to appreciate the hard work they put into pouring into the text to try and find obscure quotes and make them sound as condemning as possible.

Sorry don't know who these anti are supposed to be, but quote mining is not unusual for some critics and apologists.

*shrugs* What I have noticed about people in general is that they cannot be 'mean and kind' at the same time in their hearts. Looking at the text, I see his heart is kind, and though some statements he said might seem careless of others (not mean really), they aren't really. Much like me, he simply speaks his mind, and doesn't really intend to offend. Although, like it happens with me, people don't really notice the difference XD.

We usually can't do two things at once, but yes people can be mean one moment and very kind the next. People are mixed bag of emotions, prejudices, etc that can come and go very quickly. BY was no exception, and yes he said and thought a few bad things.

Na, Themis. Seeing to the heart is enough to see that my positive feeling is justified. I look and see a man much like myself; sometimes just willing to 'spout ideas' so to say, just for the sake of thinking. People make out his comments much more than they truly are.

I like rocksliders post to you. You are only seeing what you want. I say this becuase you haven't really read anything about the man, and much of what you know from others.

One may think it be delusion Themis, but I do not. I've had times where the Spirit goes against what I want to do. In fact... this happens quite often... and sometimes I don't listen well enough =/.

I never said it didn't , but yes of course you don't think you are deluded. :)

[_Nomad]

Nomad = Will Schryver.

Who in the world would receive a picture of Will Schryver on his iPhone documenting the shenanigans of Schryver's activities for the day? Only Will Schryver.

What are you talking about? First off, I don't have an iPhone. Second, Ihave received no pictures of Will Schryver documenting his shenanigans.

Once again it is proven how limitless is the exmo capability for creating elaborate fantasies out of whole cloth. No wonder so many of you develop serious mental disabilities in old age, like Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. You've spent so many years building a fantasy world to deal with your inner sense of guilt and shame and fear that it finally overtaxes your brain's capacity to adapt.

Why do you people have such an obsession about wanting to make myself and Schryver into the same person? I don't understand the motivation. Is it because you really believe it is not possible for anyone to support and agree with Schryver except himself? Well I've got some bad news for you ...