SMPT in Claremont in Less Than Two Weeks

[_harmony]

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.

You realize, of course, that he can't answer your question, and maintain his cloak, right?

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Thank you for admitting that your only purpose here is to attempt to smear Gad's credibility. As I noted earlier, this sure says plenty about your character, young man.

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.)

Does Lamanite agree? It seems to me that your account was warped in an effort to fulfill a Mopologetic agenda. That it "fulfilled a requirement for a class" is just a coincidence and a rather poor attempt on your part to make it seem as if you weren't trying to score apologetic brownie points. Honestly, LoaP, who do you think you're fooling here? You are even more of a suck-up than Will Schryver and Scott Lloyd.

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.

You're lying now yourself. You clearly want to strike a blow against Gadianton. You are angry that he has repeatedly embarrassed you by way of his signature line (in which you very foolishly slipped up and admitted that FARMS has "monolithic" qualities---hey, maybe at least your honesty is improving a bit), and you wanted to lash out in the hopes of damaging his credibility. You yourself admitted that your main purpose in being here is to assault the credibility of a critic. You aren't interested in discussion; you aren't here for substance; you aren't here to "work things out." You are here to smear, plain and simple. Your true Mopologetic colors are showing. Absent for many weeks, and then--POOF!!---back you scamper once you sniff an opportunity to attack someone's credibility.

I ask again: what does this say about your character, Blair? What would Richard Bushman and the other SMPT folks think if they knew you'd been up to this kind of thing?

I am simply pointing out that Gad was lying. My "appalling Jan Shipps blog entry" was appreciated by Jan herself,

CFR. If you so genuinely care about "credibility," then you are going to need to provide documentary evidence that Shipps approved of your Mopologetic fluff piece.

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.

You need to repent for your brazen butt-kissing. The Lord does not look kindly upon your brand of obsequiousness, LoaP. Nor does He much care for your hate-fueled attempt at smearing Dr. Robbers. Also, it's clear that you took advantage of Shipps in order to advance your standing amongst apologists. How disgusting.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Having attended this session I can assure you this piece had absolutely nothing to do with the tone of apologetics or anything else Gad has intimated. Tyler directly addressed certain restrictions Blake Ostler and Stephen Robinson place on what they accept as authoritative. Further, having spoken with Tyler there is simply no way in hades he is Gad.

[_Kishkumen]

Honestly, LoaP, who do you think you're fooling here? You are even more of a suck-up than Will Schryver and Scott Lloyd.

Worse than Schryver? I don't know that anyone is worse that Will when it comes to sucking up, or even plain sucking.

[_harmony]

Having attended this session I can assure you this piece had absolutely nothing to do with the tone of apologetics or anything else Gad has intimated. Tyler directly addressed certain restrictions Blake Ostler and Stephen Robinson place on what they accept as authoritative. Further, having spoken with Tyler there is simply no way in hades he is Gad.

And your assurances mean so much, because through our many years of knowing you and seeing your fairness and upstanding honesty, we trust you.

Indeed.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Thank you for admitting that your only purpose here is to attempt to smear Gad's credibility. As I noted earlier, this sure says plenty about your character, young man.

Truth is the best defense against libel, Mister Scratch.

Does Lamanite agree? It seems to me that your account was warped in an effort to fulfill a Mopologetic agenda. That it "fulfilled a requirement for a class" is just a coincidence and a rather poor attempt on your part to make it seem as if you weren't trying to score apologetic brownie points. Honestly, LoaP, who do you think you're fooling here? You are even more of a suck-up than Will Schryver and Scott Lloyd.

Absolutely Lamanite agrees. Since Lamanite and I are friends, and speak on a regular basis, you're simply out in the night on this.

You're lying now yourself. You clearly want to strike a blow against Gadianton.

Nope, just wanted everyone to know Gad was simply blowing smoke. If only you would hold him to the same standard that you hold me.

You are angry that he has repeatedly embarrassed you by way of his signature line (in which you very foolishly slipped up and admitted that FARMS has "monolithic" qualities---hey, maybe at least your honesty is improving a bit), and you wanted to lash out in the hopes of damaging his credibility.

I couldn't care less about his signature line. I'm certainly not angry about it, I think it is rather silly and out of context.

You yourself admitted that your main purpose in being here is to assault the credibility of a critic. You aren't interested in discussion; you aren't here for substance; you aren't here to "work things out." You are here to smear, plain and simple. Your true Mopologetic colors are showing. Absent for many weeks, and then--POOF!!---back you scamper once you sniff an opportunity to attack someone's credibility.

It's not a smear. It's a direct personal observation.

I ask again: what does this say about your character, Blair? What would Richard Bushman and the other SMPT folks think if they knew you'd been up to this kind of thing?

In all honesty most of these folks would wonder why I would waste more than 30 seconds even responding to this nonsense.

CFR. If you so genuinely care about "credibility," then you are going to need to provide documentary evidence that Shipps approved of your Mopologetic fluff piece.

She sent me a personal email in response to the blog post, which someone else showed her. That's as much as I need to say on the subject.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Having attended this session I can assure you this piece had absolutely nothing to do with the tone of apologetics or anything else Gad has intimated. Tyler directly addressed certain restrictions Blake Ostler and Stephen Robinson place on what they accept as authoritative. Further, having spoken with Tyler there is simply no way in hades he is Gad.

And your assurances mean so much, because through our many years of knowing you and seeing your fairness and upstanding honesty, we trust you.

Indeed.

Indeed.

[_harmony]

And your assurances mean so much, because through our many years of knowing you and seeing your fairness and upstanding honesty, we trust you.

Indeed.

Indeed.

Well, now we can add delusional to your list of characteristics. Trust is earned, LoaP. You're coming up short on those earnings.

[_Kishkumen]

I couldn't care less about his signature line. I'm certainly not angry about it, I think it is rather silly and out of context.

My guess is that you were bored and wanted to stir the pot a little.

[_Kishkumen]

Maybe I am a little confused here, but I thought it was pretty clear that Gad was joking around. Why would anyone take this seriously enough to "catch him in the lie"? Furthermore, why would we take the person who is doing that "catching" very seriously?

It seems to me like this thread is a pointless joke.