SMPT Call for Papers

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

I get it very well.

[_Mister Scratch]

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

I get it very well.

Nope!

[_Joey]

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

Mildly interesting proposition Peterson, time permitting of course. Some of us however, as you well know quite obviously,unfortunately don't seem have the free time of a BYU professor teaching one class every other semester.

Nonetheless, before commiting any hard to find time to such curiosity, may I ask the following from you:

If you are one in the know to Mormon church things, has the Mormon church, in an official capacity, ever addressed what this POGP section, calling "all other churches, creeds and beliefs abominable", really means for non members? I would not want to spend time on a subject your church has already responded to without knowing their position. If they have not addressed this doctrinal claim, it would obviously create more questions to address.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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

Mildly interesting proposition Peterson, time permitting of course. Some of us however, as you well know quite obviously,unfortunately don't seem have the free time of a BYU professor teaching one class every other semester.

I think you're preparing to pull a modified Scratch on this one.

Incidentally, I taught last semester, and I'm currently teaching a seminar on the Qur’an (Arabic 425R) and the senior Middle East Studies/Arabic seminar (MESA 495).

Nonetheless, before commiting any hard to find time to such curiosity, may I ask the following from you:

If you are one in the know to Mormon church things, has the Mormon church, in an official capacity, ever addressed what this POGP section, calling "all other churches, creeds and beliefs abominable", really means for non members? I would not want to spend time on a subject your church has already responded to without knowing their position. If they have not addressed this doctrinal claim, it would obviously create more questions to address.

There have been some approaches to the topic. But are they satisfactory? Do you agree with them? Do you find them convincing? Inadequate? Can you add something to them? Should you challenge them?

This is the point where you do your literature review.

My students in the MESA 495 class, right now, are reading the appropriate chapters in Booth, et al., The Craft of Research, and Turabian, A Manual for Writers, formulating their topics, doing their literature reviews, and preparing their proposals.

[_Joey]

Peterson said: "There have been some approaches to the topic"

My question was quite simple. Has the Mormon church in any official capacity explained the passage from the POGP?

I have know idea what you mean by "approach". Does it mean the church has, or has not addressed the pasaage in an official capacity? Any reference to such "approach"?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Peterson said: "There have been some approaches to the topic"

My question was quite simple. Has the Mormon church in any official capacity explained the passage from the POGP?

I have know idea what you mean by "approach". Does it mean the church has, or has not addressed the pasaage in an official capacity? Any reference to such "approach"?

I believe that, in the course of your literature review, you'll find quite a few statements from the Church on this topic, and that you'll find many members of the First Presidency and the Twelve addressing that particular passage.

I'll soon begin preparing my own paper for the conference (although it's still possible that I'll be out of the country on that weekend), and I really don't have the time to serve as the research assistant for yours. But I do want to encourage you to submit a proposal.

[_Joey]

I believe that, in the course of your literature review, you'll find quite a few statements from the Church on this topic, and that you'll find many members of the First Presidency and the Twelve addressing that particular passage.

It would be really refreshing if you could ever get these BYU guys to answer a question without using the Robert Millet approach. If you have no evidence for your position, just simply say so or provide a reference. Can members of the first presidency or the twelve speak officially for the LDS church??? Can you provide one reference where they have for this POGP passage?

I'll soon begin preparing my own paper for the conference (although it's still possible that I'll be out of the country on that weekend), and I really don't have the time to serve as the research assistant for yours.

But you have all the free time in the world to continue posting on this and other boards today, tomorrow and all next week!!


If so many "official" church explanations really do exist, as you claim, providing one reference would certainly take no more than a quick moment similar to posting a "niteline" reference to the Draper temple!

You seem to be selectively
busy when called on to be accountable for your statements.

Me thinks the LDS church chooses to avoid this passage intentionally!

[_Droopy]

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.

Scratch, I've seen projection on many occasions, but in this instance, I think you've actually succeeded in creating a hologram of yourself having life and substance of its own. This holographic Frankenstein has just said its piece.

"Its alive! Its alive!" screams Dr. Scratch.

It will be interesting, in the fullness of time, to find out just what really imates your mindless, misanthropic bigotry.

[_Droopy]

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.

Yet again, Scratch follows Quinn around like a lonely groupie follows Mick Jagger.

I wonder if, following a number of old threads here on the subject, perhaps Quinn isn't taken quite as seriously in the academic world as his hanger's on would like LDS to believe (and would like to believe themselves)?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It would be really refreshing if you could ever get these BYU guys to answer a question without using the Robert Millet approach. If you have no evidence for your position, just simply say so or provide a reference. Can members of the first presidency or the twelve speak officially for the LDS church??? Can you provide one reference where they have for this POGP passage?

What you really mean is that it would be refreshing if I were to do your homework for you.

This passage has been discussed hundreds of times over the past century and a half. I'm not your research assistant. I'm not going to devote hours to supplying references for you.

If you're interested, do the work.

You've treated me contemptuously for several years now; you're not a friend, and I owe you no favors.

I'll soon begin preparing my own paper for the conference (although it's still possible that I'll be out of the country on that weekend), and I really don't have the time to serve as the research assistant for yours.

But you have all the free time in the world to continue posting on this and other boards today, tomorrow and all next week!!

Maybe. Maybe not.

I did, though, just take time to go out with my wife and our next door neighbors to a new Thai restaurant. Could I have used the two hours or so that that required in order to begin compiling a list of references for you? Sure I could. But why should I?

If so many "official" church explanations really do exist, as you claim, providing one reference would certainly take no more than a quick moment similar to posting a "niteline" reference to the Draper temple!

And you can do it as easily as I can.

You seem to be selectively busy when called on to be accountable for your statements.

What statement is it that I need to "account for"?

You're right, though. I'm selectively busy. Going out with my wife and our neighbors was more important to me than compiling a list of references for you. Some things interest me; some things don't. I'm more inclined to be helpful to friends than to people who insult me on a regular basis. Just a personal quirk, perhaps, but that's the way I am.

Me thinks the LDS church chooses to avoid this passage intentionally!

That's right. We never ever refer to it. We keep it a secret.