DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:41 pm**

I don't want to derail this further, honestly, I don't. But I have to say this. No way is the NYP correct in their assertion that the Susan Boyle performance was a set up. Even IF Simon had her participate as a "ringer", there is no possible way that an audience of that size, would take part in the mocking and ridicule as a set up without someone spilling on Simon. No possible way.

[/derail]

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:46 pm**

Doctor Scratch wrote:1) What motivated the Brethren to "invite" FARMS to join fully and officially with BYU? We know that it had something to do with FARMS's "fundraising" and PR, as per Reynolds, but what, specifically, was it? The Ziggurat?

I am undoubtedly wrong, and I know you believe in research over speculation, but allow me to speculate. It was the aggressive pursuit of Correlation that drove the Brethren to bring FARMS under the wing of BYU. It was all about the priesthood chain of command. The Ziggurat demonstrated the kind of independence that belonged already to the past. They needed to head it off before it got underway.

Doctor Scratch wrote:2) What was the "quip" which clued DCP into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down?

Any note of disapproval, not matter how indirect, would be taken with the utmost seriousness, if it came from the Brethren.

Doctor Scratch wrote:5) Why, during this very tumultuous time, was the FARMS accountant terminated?

The process for assimilation had begun, and the FARMS accountant was no longer needed. That, or he was skimming money to make rent.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:53 pm**

Kishkumen wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:1) What motivated the Brethren to "invite" FARMS to join fully and officially with BYU? We know that it had something to do with FARMS's "fundraising" and PR, as per Reynolds, but what, specifically, was it? The Ziggurat?

I am undoubtedly wrong, and I know you believe in research over speculation, but allow me to speculate. It was the aggressive pursuit of Correlation that drove the Brethren to bring FARMS under the wing of BYU. It was all about the priesthood chain of command. The Ziggurat demonstrated the kind of independence that belonged already to the past. They needed to head it off before it got underway.

An interesting theory, Dr. Kumen. I don't think there can be any real doubt that Correlation and priesthood authority had something to do with it. It has already been suggested that FARMS had begun to pose a threat to the Brethren, so I suppose it would be useful to consider what that "threat" might have been. Was it a threat to priesthood authority? Perhaps. On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that the Brethren appear to have ceded much of their doctrinal authority over to the apologists (cf. the Cumorah revisionism in the 2nd Watson letter, etc. by the way: DCP has been lying to the MADites on this issue. Critics have contacted the 1st Presidency on multiple occasions concerning this letter, and they haven't ever heard anything back.)

Doctor Scratch wrote:2) What was the "quip" which clued DCP into the fact that the hostility in the FARMS Review needed to be dialed down?

Any note of disapproval, not matter how indirect, would be taken with the utmost seriousness, if it came from the Brethren.

Oh, I agree. I'm still curious as to what the quip was, though. And Doctor Peterson has been remarkably reticent on this issue.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:21 pm**

Doctor Scratch wrote:On the other hand, we have to bear in mind that the Brethren appear to have ceded much of their doctrinal authority over to the apologists (cf. the Cumorah revisionism in the 2nd Watson letter, etc. by the way: DCP has been lying to the MADites on this issue. Critics have contacted the 1st Presidency on multiple occasions concerning this letter, and they haven't ever heard anything back.

Yes. Any serious discussion of the details of doctrine is quickly becoming the apologists' unique purview. The Brethren can rely upon the apologists to come up with the solution, and then the Brethren can use it in simplified form to teach the masses and protect the Big Mo. The masses are none the wiser because so few of them read what the apologists write, and even if they did read it, only a fraction of them would have any idea what they were reading. After all, most Mormon converts are poorly educated. If they were educated, most of them would have never converted in the first place. So, what would they do with the material written in the FARMS Review? I would say that they might roll it up and smoke it, but the Church has left them little other recourse than to use it as a rather stiff substitute for toilet paper.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:16 pm**

William Schryver wrote:In fact, so convinced was I that this scam had to be obvious to someone else, I did a little Googling and turned up this story from yesterday's New York Post:

That's amazing, Will, and you still believe the Book of Mormon is history?

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:39 pm**

Ray A wrote:That's amazing, Will, and you still believe the Book of Mormon is history?

It's amazing, when you get down to it. As soon as a poor Mormon engages in apologetics, he or she loses all sense of irony... or logical consistency.

Posted: **Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:08 pm**

William Schryver wrote:There is no doubt whatsoever that the woman can sing. No doubt.

But if you believe that everything is on the "up and up" here, you're nuts.

In fact, so convinced was I that this scam had to be obvious to someone else, I did a little Googling and turned up this story from yesterday's New York Post:

I'm not sure that it's a "scam", any more than Paul Potts was a scam. Many people knew about his talent long before he appeared on Britain's Got Talent. That's just what gave him the break to become a professional. Susan Boyle's talent was also recognised by others, at least as far back as 1999. That's just what gave her the break. But we'll see where she goes.

I'll liken it to my own former sport of distance running. No one suddenly ups and wins the Boston Marathon in 2 hours 08 minutes. Somewhere, people know about talent before it emerges to worldwide publicity. Perhaps you don't know the story of Abebe Bikila, a virtual "unknown" before he amazed everyone by winning the 1960 Olympic Marathon. Or Billy Mills, or Zola Budd. They were all "unknowns" until the beat the best in the world in "great upsets". No, I didn't believe for one minute that Potts only sang while showering, and his subsequent worldwide success shows that he's no fly-by-night.

People laughed at Susan Boyle when she appeared on the show, at her age, and the way she looked, and wanting to be like Elaine Page. When they heard her voice, they laughed no more, and that was the point beastie made. I'm quite sure no one would have been shocked if she looked like Twiggy or Angelina Jolley. She was formerly publicly unrecognised, but the show gave her the opportunity to become famous. I guess you could say that Britain's Got Talent was her "Boston marathon win".

But I realised you only wanted to score points for another apoloholic pyrrhic victory.

Edit: Perhaps a mod would be kind enough to separate the Britain's Got Talent comments from this thread.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:58 am**

William Schryver wrote:Ray:
I was "warned" in 1985.

And look what you’ve become in the meantime!

Hello!

Ray, you’re life has become a freaking disaster in the quarter century since you first violated your covenant with God. Look around you, my would-be nemesis! Do you like what you see?

Where is the committed love of an eternal companion with whom you might have relished life all this time, and whom you might have had beside you forever? What do you “enjoy” in its place?

Where is your posterity of gospel-rooted children and grandchildren, whose eyes shine with the pure light of truth and virtue?

Where is your peace of mind when you lie down at night?

The corrosion of your soul continues from day to day, leaving you bitter and cold; crippled and old.

Where is the light of truth and knowledge that might have steadily expanded your mind beyond the base and earthly thoughts upon which you are now fixated? Gone. Replaced with the vanity of the pretended wisdom and meagre intellectual attainments of men who know less of the meaning and purpose of our existence than your average primary child. You might have positioned yourself for learning on a galactic scale, and instead you’ve settled for the constricting walls of a dank flat and a dingy cab.

And now, from the source you’d least prefer, you’ve been warned again. That is perhaps the most ironic cut of all, I know, but you have to learn to hear God’s voice in the most unlikely of places, and be willing and humble enough to accept it regardless of its origin.

And so, I implore you again: get off this train before it's too late. The consequences of ignoring the warning I bring could very well fall upon you with much more force, alacrity, and permanence than did those of the previous 24 years.

But I fear your feet are set on this path, no matter if an angel should call upon you with a voice of thunder.

The choice is, as always, yours to make.

Help me out here. Is this frickin' guy serious or just clowning around? :rolleyes:

Either way it's hilarious

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:12 pm**

Nomomo:

Help me out here. Is this frickin' guy serious or just clowning around?

That is the $64 question, isn't it?

I'll give you a hint: you never really can be sure.

At the very least, I'm gratified that you found it so entertaining.

In the immortal words of Tom Stoppard:

Audiences know what to expect, and that is all they are prepared to believe.

Posted: **Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:18 pm**

William Schryver wrote:Nomomo:
Help me out here. Is this frickin' guy serious or just clowning around?

That is the $64 question, isn't it?

I'll give you a hint: you never really can be sure.

At the very least, I'm gratified that you found it so entertaining.

In the immortal words of Tom Stoppard:

Audiences know what to expect, and that is all they are prepared to believe.

A performance then. You certainly do a very good imitation of the more ridiculous type of Momo. You've got it down pat. Very convincing. Must of put in an awful lot of practice honing that act.

DiscussMormonism.com

Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat

Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat