SMPT Call for Papers

[_solomarineris]

That's exactly the kind of contribution I anticipated that you might make at the conference, s&m.

And, now that you've tested the waters and set the example, perhaps your peers TAK and collegeterrace/PP and Some Schmo and poor antishock8 will be willing to step forward with their meditations, as well.

Now that we established that your Franchaise is so merveilleux, ausgezeichnet!
Could we hope you to add your touring repertoire LaChaux Cave also?
Who knows, we could find some remnants of Laman & Lehi's tracks.
I mean, the world is full of marvels; I didn't even begin to mention Pyramids, Mayan Temples; As we so well know they were built by Lamanites.

[_Bond James Bond]

You're no dummy, Mr. Bond.

I'm glad to see you have faith. It's the next best thing to evidence [of which there's none on this issue ].

[_Mister Scratch]

Here's my proposed submission:

"'Lying for the Lord': Hostile Rhetoric and the Re-envisioning of Mormon Doctrine in the work of Daniel C. Peterson, William J. Hamblin, and Louis Midgley."

Abstract: This presentation explores the rhetorical underpinnings in the work of three of the LDS Church's top apologists. The paper will discuss the nuanced yet obviously hostile way in which these writers engage in apologia. Specifically, Peterson & et al.'s use of subterfuge, hypocrisy, and smear tactics will be examined, highlighted by way of their handling of such matters as D. Michael Quinn's historical writing and excommunication, and the so-called "2nd Watson Letter". Ultimately, this presentation will reveal the way that deep-seated fear, jealousy, and anger fuel the philosophy and rhetoric of these apologists.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Here's my proposed submission:

"'Lying for the Lord': Hostile Rhetoric and the Re-envisioning of Mormon Doctrine in the work of Daniel C. Peterson, William J. Hamblin, and Louis Midgley."

Abstract: This presentation explores the rhetorical underpinnings in the work of three of the LDS Church's top apologists. The paper will discuss the nuanced yet obviously hostile way in which these writers engage in apologia. Specifically, Peterson & et al.'s use of subterfuge, hypocrisy, and smear tactics will be examined, highlighted by way of their handling of such matters as D. Michael Quinn's historical writing and excommunication, and the so-called "2nd Watson Letter". Ultimately, this presentation will reveal the way that deep-seated fear, jealousy, and anger fuel the philosophy and rhetoric of these apologists.

Go ahead and propose it.

The vetting process for papers at the conference will be double blind, and will likely include non-Mormons and inactive Mormons as well as faithful members of the Church.

I was wondering how long it would take you to try to twist this thread around to your signature obsessions and personal hostilities. (You actually took considerably longer than I had expected -- although it must be said that you don't seem to have been posting much here over the past few days, so that that fact may not be particularly significant.)

But I'm entirely serious. Propose the paper you describe here. See whether it flies. And, if it does, give it.

You could reveal me as the scoundrel you know I am before an audience of people whom I respect, and -- no less -- very nearly in my own home town. It's not unlikely that people who knew me as a young man will be in the audience. Maybe my brother will even come.

If you make your case successfully, I'll be publicly stigmatized, wounded for life. Think how gratifying that will be!



.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Incidentally, one or two here have claimed that I come onto threads that aren't about me and, because of my uncontrollable ego and my defective personal psychology, twist them so that they are about me.

Reading through this short thread will illustrate very nicely how I tend to do that.

[_Joey]

Interesting quote from the SMPT site:

"While claiming exclusive authority, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also takes a strikingly inclusive view of other religious traditions as loci of revealed truth and of God’s work. For example, in 2 Nephi 29:7 God says, "I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all nations of the earth." "

Now compare that, "strikingly" again, to the truth of their Mormon Doctrine:

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Perhaps one of the papers submitted should reconcile the sites PR statement to their claimed doctrine!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why don't you propose a paper on the topic, Joey?

[_Mister Scratch]

The vetting process for papers at the conference will be double blind, and will likely include non-Mormons and inactive Mormons as well as faithful members of the Church.

Really? Huh. That's interesting. Of course, this means that it would most definitely be kibboshed, just like Quinn's presentation was for the Yale conference.

I was wondering how long it would take you to try to twist this thread around to your signature obsessions and personal hostilities.

Meaning....what? That you had an ulterior motive in posting this thread?

(You actually took considerably longer than I had expected -- although it must be said that you don't seem to have been posting much here over the past few days, so that that fact may not be particularly significant.)

You've been here a lot, though, and leveling a lot of accusations about others being "hostile." Could it be that you're projecting?

But I'm entirely serious. Propose the paper you describe here. See whether it flies. And, if it does, give it.

You could reveal me as the scoundrel you know I am before an audience of people whom I respect, and -- no less -- very nearly in my own home town. It's not unlikely that people who knew me as a young man will be in the audience. Maybe my brother will even come.

If you make your case successfully, I'll be publicly stigmatized, wounded for life. Think how gratifying that will be!

Uh, no. I don't think so. Even if it passed the vetting process (which it wouldn't) the presentation wouldn't hurt you in the least. (Not that I want to see you "harmed", of course.) You wouldn't be "wounded for life" (ha ha, Prof. P.), or "stigmatized," or anything of that nature. That is what's so ironic about your complaints: you whine and moan that I am being mean to you, that I am "hostile" and "malevolent," or whatever else, but bear this in mind: my comments have always been limited to this messageboard. You, on the other hand, tear into people in public ways that have real consequences for their lives. Nothing I could say, either on this board, or at a conference, would really do anything to affect your Mopologetic status and attitude. You have done too much networking, planning, and scheming, and you essentially attack from an Ivory Tower where consequences are meaningless for you.

In short: No, I won't stoop to your level.

[_Daniel Peterson]

In other words, you won't attempt to make your accusations publicly, beyond the confines of a message board, without a pseudonym.

If you're nervous about proposing your paper to a group of academics focused on philosophy and theology -- which is probably appropriate, since your sketchy "proposal" seems to deal, rather, primarily in history, psychology, or, even just malicious gossip -- you might still consider the annual Sunstone symposium as a venue. Although it would be a longer drive for you, its standards are lower and, on the whole, its audience would be much more interested in and sympathetic toward your accusations. And I wouldn't be there to reply.

[_Mister Scratch]

You just don't get it, do you, Dan?