SMPT in Claremont in Less Than Two Weeks

[_Jersey Girl]

OK---

I guess I'm really naïve.

I honestly thought that Gad was serious about presenting.

Maybe Gad can clarify?

If Gad could clarify, would we be asking these questions?

[_Yoda]

My specific "topic", Liz, is the failures of apologetics. It's a devastating critique. Well, it would be better to say that such failures would follow from the meaning of my talk.

I just wanted to let everyone know that none of the SMPT presentations come anywhere near what Gad claimed he would present. Since I know the rest of todays presenters, and since I know they are not Gad, I have to say I believe Gad has been dishonest (or perhaps was joking). Gad had nothing to do with the SMPT conference and did not present there despite what he claimed. Just for clarification.

I recognize that "Lie" is a serious charge, but unless Gad is Margaret Toscano (who didn't make it) I believe Gad has lied.

For a simple test, however, perhaps Gad could let us know what Dan Peterson talked about in his paper yesterday. Any specific point should suffice to show that Gad was indeed present. This would need to be posted now rather than later when Dan's thoughts will be available for download from SMPT.

That's all I have to add here, so I likely won't be back for further commenting.

According to the full program schedule which Daniel included on page 1, there were many presentations that were given concurrently. Are you saying that you were magically able to attend all sessions and all presentations, even though some were simultaneously given?

I think it's a bit of a stretch, LOAP, to assume that just because you didn't hear a presentation that met Gad's broad description, that he couldn't have been one of the presenters.

[_harmony]

I guess I'm really naïve.

I honestly thought that Gad was serious about presenting.

Maybe Gad can clarify?

Liz, my friend. In order to present at a conference, after saying what one is supposedly going to present on, one would have to uncloak. Truth Dancer did, Dr Shades did, but they are both rare individuals with great courage and Shades, at least, has paid a heavy price. I assumed Gad was pulling our collective legs because I just can't see him willingly uncloaking.

[_Yoda]

Liz, my friend. In order to present at a conference, after saying what one is supposedly going to present on, one would have to uncloak. Truth Dancer did, Dr Shades did, but they are both rare individuals with great courage and Shades, at least, has paid a heavy price. I assumed Gad was pulling our collective legs because I just can't see him willingly uncloaking.

Gad, himself, stated that he would never "uncloak". However, his description was vague enough that it actually could have fit into several of the presentations offered if you read the descriptions of subject matter. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that he could have presented.

[_Kishkumen]

Oh, but if an apologist lied, you would not be so glib, would you?

You obviously don't know me very well.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I don't know which is more humorous, Gad's obvious joke or your faux moralizing about it.

I am not trying to "moralize" anything. It has more to do with credibility than morality in my approach.

Meaning, what, LoaP? You know, I really have to wonder about the character of a supposedly "believing Latter-day Saint" who just turns up to write a post like this. You yourself lied quite magnificently (or at least you severely and dishonestly distorted the facts) in your little tale about your cab ride with Jan Shipps.

I neither severely nor dishonestly distorted the "facts" about my cab ride. Jan herself appreciated my blog post (which again, fulfilled a requirement for a class I was taking at the U.)

You once told me that you wanted to "meet for lunch" to "work things out." Well, given this recent BS from you, I assume that the only person who's in need of "working things out" is you. You need to work on reducing the deep bitterness you feel towards anything that even remotely seems to criticize your precious Mopologetics, and you need to work on being less of a wienie. I hope you repent for the accusations that you've made here. While you're at it, you may as well also ask Heavenly Father to forgive you for your appalling Jan Shipps blog entry.

I don't feel anything close to a "deep bitterness" as you say. I am simply pointing out that Gad was lying. My "appalling Jan Shipps blog entry" was appreciated by Jan herself, so I'll assume no repentance will be necessary, though it is bizarre to see anyone say I would need "forgiveness" for such a thing.

According to the full program schedule which Daniel included on page 1, there were many presentations that were given concurrently. Are you saying that you were magically able to attend all sessions and all presentations, even though some were simultaneously given?

I think it's a bit of a stretch, LOAP, to assume that just because you didn't hear a presentation that met Gad's broad description, that he couldn't have been one of the presenters.

The few sessions I did not personally attend either involved people I know (and know are not Gadianton) or I discussed the thrust of the papers with the presenters or people who attended them. None of them come remotely near anything Gad hinted at, though he tried to be as vague as possible. I may be mistaken, but I would bet my life on Gad not being here. No doubt in my mind.

However, his description was vague enough that it actually could have fit into several of the presentations offered if you read the descriptions of subject matter.

Name the presentations you think Gad may have done and I'll tell you if I attended or not, and whether it might have been Gad and why.

[_Inconceivable]

Where is Gad?

I would love to hear his side to this.

At a glance I thought you wrote GOD. So I got to chuckle twice.

by the way,

I would love to hear GOD's side of this.

[_Yoda]

Name the presentations you think Gad may have done and I'll tell you if I attended or not, and whether it might have been Gad and why.

I honestly thought this might have been his topic:

Tyler Stoehr - Do Mormons Really Believe That?

Although the LDS faith has enjoyed increased recognition in recent years, apparently its doctrinal message is still rather cloudy and obscure, as evidenced by the fact that Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen and Gregory C.V. Johnson have all recently been quoted as saying that "trying to figure out just what constitutes Mormon theology is like trying to nail Jell-O dipped in olive oil to the wall." In this paper I will argue that part of the explanation for this conclusion arises from the fact that when it comes to the LDS prophetic tradition, scholars (and perhaps even lay members), both within and without the Church, don't seem to be sure about the role said tradition is supposed to play when it comes to the interpretation and presentation of LDS doctrine. Furthermore, I will argue that in recent years LDS apologists have been trending towards a view of LDS doctrine that borders on sola scriptura, which has only served to contribute to the confusion already surrounding the LDS belief in continuing revelation and prophetic guidance. I will then assess recent attempts to approach this issue and argue that despite these efforts the LDS have yet to offer a consistent approach to their tradition. I will then offer a few suggestions for how this question might be approached.

The portion I bolded seems to correlate directly with some of the criticisms Gad has raised regarding apologists.

[_Yoda]

The few sessions I did not personally attend either involved people I know (and know are not Gadianton)

Also...how can you be absolutely certain that someone you know isn't Gadianton? Gad wants to remain anonymous. Maybe he's very good at fooling even his closest friends.

It certainly adds to his intrigue.

[_Kishkumen]

I am not trying to "moralize" anything. It has more to do with credibility than morality in my approach.

Oh geez, I thought you were joking, since you understood that Gad was too. Credibility? You do get that it was a joke, right?