The Origin of FAIR/MAD

[_beastie]

I don't have much time now except for brief comments, but later I will go through this thread again and comment more (which I couldn't do because of work). The underlying motive Scratch has is to destroy the credibility of "Mopologists". What you point out may be true, and I do see the context, but Scratch's ultimate motive is character assassination! And later I'm going to pose some questions to Scratch in a separate thread.

Your personal bias against scratch is resulting in your emphasis of the fact that this story does involve "character assassination" (although is it assassination when the charge is true?) and de-emphasis of what he stated his larger purpose was - which you can see right in the title of this thread: The Origin of FAIR. Clearly, Juliann and DCP felt that this thread in particular typified why Z was a bad place.

As far as the enjoyment in exposing Juliann's deceptive maneuvering on the thread, one of the hard facts of life is that if you go around accusing other people of bad behavior that you actually engage in yourself, sooner or later someone is going to expose you, and really enjoy doing it. I've lost track of how many times Juliann accused me of lying and deception - and never had any justification for her accusations. And I'm far from her only target. You reap what you sow.

[_barrelomonkeys]

As far as the enjoyment in exposing Juliann's deceptive maneuvering on the thread, one of the hard facts of life is that if you go around accusing other people of bad behavior that you actually engage in yourself, sooner or later someone is going to expose you, and really enjoy doing it. I've lost track of how many times Juliann accused me of lying and deception - and never had any justification for her accusations. And I'm far from her only target. You reap what you sow.

Yup!

[_Daniel Peterson]

I would not be surprised to find that you had been "assigned' to defend the LDS Church in this forum (and particularly in this thread)

I would be surprised to learn that anybody at Church headquarters or BYU even knows that this forum exists.

Nonetheless, thanks for the kind words.

[_harmony]

I would not be surprised to find that you had been "assigned' to defend the LDS Church in this forum (and particularly in this thread)

I would be surprised to learn that anybody at Church headquarters or BYU even knows that this forum exists.

And yet we know they monitor this board, and other boards like it.

Nonetheless, thanks for the kind words.

Your forebearance has been remarkable and shows by example that we all can be taught. Well done, Professor Peterson. 'Way to turn the other cheek. And because of it, the wild-eyed vitrol has virtually stopped. An example of the gospel of Jesus Christ in action.

[_Blixa]

And because of it, the wild-eyed vitrol has virtually stopped.

Careful, harmony, that's like tempting the devil ; )

[_harmony]

And because of it, the wild-eyed vitrol has virtually stopped.

Careful, harmony, that's like tempting the devil ; )

They're both doing very well. Even at their most shall we say... colorful... they add a dimension to this board that is missing elsewhere. The pain that is readily apparent cannot be mistaken for something else. It's so very out-there, only by deliberately ignoring it can anyone reply in like fashion, which only escalates the interaction, since they can both dish it out without stopping, crying foul, or calling uncle.

[_Tarski]

Your father was a bishop of a ward of BYU professors, one of whom confessed to being gay, and your father still signed his temple recommend and his stake president still signed his temple recommend and the guy passed his ecclesiastical review, and the guy still remained a professor at BYU? Do you not see how far-fetched that is?

I don't see it as even slightly "far-fetched." I know for a fact that that is indeed standard operating procedure.

I thought so.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And yet we know they monitor this board, and other boards like it.

Do we? I've seen the claim; I have no personal reason to credit it.

The people that I know in Salt Lake whom I might expect to be aware of such boards as this don't appear to know anything at all about them. The so-called "Recovery" board came up once after a meeting; a staffer in the Public Affairs Department asked me if I had ever seen it, and, if so, what it was like. I've also had two or three meetings -- not within the past two or three years, though -- with other committees where the subject came up of anti-Mormonism on the web; they plainly knew nothing at first hand, and instantly deferred to me as the "expert."

It's possible that some other group at Church headquarters, of whom I'm unaware and with whom I have no contact, is monitoring this and other such boards. But I can't imagine who they might be, if they exist.

I guess I'll thank you for your kind words, too, even though you've long tended to exaggerate my alleged depraved viciousness quite wildly.

It reminds me of my first two years as an undergraduate at BYU. During the first year, I was given absolutely no church calling. Occasionally, when the Gospel Doctrine teacher (now a General Authority) was unavailable, he would ask me to substitute for him, but, other than that, I was one of the few members of the ward who had no assignment at all. I was never asked to speak or to do anything, though I attended faithfully and without fail. The next year -- I attended BYU for two years prior to my mission -- I returned to the same ward, and was asked to teach the elders quorum. At the very end of the year, the bishop came into the priesthood meeting and paid tribute to me as (I'm quoting him only to make my main point here) "an exceptionally dynamic teacher of the Gospel." "And," he continued, "to think that Brother Peterson was completely inactive only a year before!" (That would have been possible in those days, before ecclesiastical endorsements were required.)

Then as now, I appreciated the compliment, but thought that the prior negative reminiscence, even though it heightened the contrast beautifully and made my transition to butterfly all the more stunning, was a bit overdrawn.

[_harmony]

Your father was a bishop of a ward of BYU professors, one of whom confessed to being gay, and your father still signed his temple recommend and his stake president still signed his temple recommend and the guy passed his ecclesiastical review, and the guy still remained a professor at BYU? Do you not see how far-fetched that is?

I don't see it as even slightly "far-fetched." I know for a fact that that is indeed standard operating procedure.

Sorry, I don't believe that for a second. I'm afraid you're going to have to produce the evidence. I doubt there are any openly gay faculty at BYU, because I doubt that if there were any, they could pass the ecclesiastical review process.

Let's see how liberal the BYU leadership really is. Let's say a BYU professor who teaches something like Book of Mormon 101, married for many years, with tenure, realizes after many years of agony that he is gay. He confesses this to his bishop, tells his stake president, assures them he has not engaged in sexual activity outside the bounds of his marriage but he is divorcing his wife and will be dressing as a woman from them on. One day soon after, he dresses in very tasteful professional clothes, dons a wig and makeup, and teaches his classes as a woman. How long will he be allowed in the classroom? He's following the dress code, has not had any sexual encounters, yet is openly blatantly gay. How long will he last?

[_harmony]

And yet we know they monitor this board, and other boards like it.

Do we? I've seen the claim; I have no personal reason to credit it.

We've all seen many claims that we have little reason to credit. You've made a few of those yourself. So we each determine if we believe the source for that particular claim or not, based on criteria we ourselves determine. Here, no one does the thinking for us. It's a painful process to learn, but some of us have worked out a pretty good system that works for us most of the time. For some of us, at least, that claim was shown to have merit. Perhaps you'd personally choose an impossible-to-reach criteria before you'd believe it, based simply on the source itself. Someone's who's good at that sort of thing can post the link to the thread that discussed it.

The people that I know in Salt Lake whom I might expect to be aware of such boards as this don't appear to know anything at all about them. The so-called "Recovery" board came up once after a meeting; a staffer in the Public Affairs Department asked me if I had ever seen it, and, if so, what it was like. I've also had two or three meetings -- not within the past two or three years, though -- with other committees where the subject came up of anti-Mormonism on the web; they plainly knew nothing at first hand, and instantly deferred to me as the "expert."

How ironic.

It's possible that some other group at Church headquarters, of whom I'm unaware and with whom I have no contact, is monitoring this and other such boards.

Something happens at church headquarters that is not known in your department in Provo? Hmmmm. You might want to look into that.

But I can't imagine who they might be, if they exist.

Try. An untaxed imagination is an imagination gone stale.

I guess I'll thank you for your kind words, too, even though you've long tended to exaggerate my alleged depraved viciousness quite wildly.

On the contrary, I don't think I ever accused you of "depraved viciousness". An innate inability to turn the other cheek, an arrogance that is breathtaking, a vicious wit... but depraved? I don't think so.

It reminds me of my first two years as an undergraduate at BYU. During the first year, I was given absolutely no church calling. Occasionally, when the Gospel Doctrine teacher (now a General Authority) was unavailable, he would ask me to substitute for him, but, other than that, I was one of the few members of the ward who had no assignment at all. I was never asked to speak or to do anything, though I attended faithfully and without fail. The next year -- I attended BYU for two years prior to my mission -- I returned to the same ward, and was asked to teach the elders quorum. At the very end of the year, the bishop came into the priesthood meeting and paid tribute to me as (I'm quoting him only to make my main point here) "an exceptionally dynamic teacher of the Gospel." "And," he continued, "to think that Brother Peterson was completely inactive only a year before!" (That would have been possible in those days, before ecclesiastical endorsements were required.)

You date yourself, Professor P.

Then as now, I appreciated the compliment, but thought that the prior negative reminiscence, even though it heightened the contrast beautifully and made my transition to butterfly all the more stunning, was a bit overdrawn.

A butterfly with Professor P's countenance. No doubt a new species. Welcome to the board. :-)