From My Informant: DCP & Schryver Ordered to Stand Down

[_TAO]

Well I thank you for the answers that you did provide. Based on these answers I assume you are young (to me that is under 25), you only have a few years at best with experience in Mormon doctrine. You are not and have never been married and have no children.

There once was a man, who received a new book from his friend. It read "The Answers To Life". The man stared to see who wrote the book, but couldn't read the scribble that lied between the title and bottom edge. Finally, with a 'sigh', he opened the book.

It was totally blank.

Rolling his eyes, he tossed the book aside, and it was later donated by his wife to a local library. Years passed.

One day, an old man, scarred with many trials in life, came to the library. While he was searching for a book on Cooking (his wife had just died), he knocked over a book onto the floor. Picking it up, he looked at it. It read "The Answers to Life". Browsing through the pages, he found there was no writing in it. Looking at the back cover, his eyes were slowly drawn to a small section of text in the bottom right corner of the book. It said "Every day is a blank page, and you are the writer. Wise is the man who uses those blank pages fully, so that the first contains not the words of the last."

The man smiled, and carrying the book in the crook of his arm, checked out early. The book was not returned on it's due date- but the librarian - realizing that the book had not been check out once in it's 25 year stay, bit her cheek, and erased the entire entry from the library database.

I'm hearing you basically say that your exponential growth experience with Mormonism is basically one that is mostly spiritual, mental and internal with these being enhanced because of the autism with only the minimal of needed reference material which tends to open up for you.

Yes spiritual, also philosophical. Mormonism to me is living to my ideals.

Na, I still use references... but they are more as stimuli. The true education comes from thought, and personal feelings about the subject, that it does. Reading a text won't get you anywhere. Pondering what it means, why it was wrote the way it was wrote when it was written, and the personality of the writer are much more edifying.

I assume you have never read any of the Pratt brothers works, or BH Roberts, or studied out the likes of the King Follett address or read the Lecture at the Veil.

*shrugs* Have read KF address, but the rest nope. I doubt I would find them all too surprising though XD. There are many things a long time ago that I thought would be hard to find an understanding of, but now I have no problems with those things.

Have you ever studied Joseph Fielding Smiths compilation/book of Joseph Smith's teachings named the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"?

Nope not yet. But as said, it's just another hurdle to jump, and jumping hurdles has become sorta fun =D.

Could you expound on the Adam God Theory without having to look it up?

Yep. Also alternative explanations. I can also explain why I believe the main-stream interpretation is incorrect. But that be not for this thread.

Are you familiar with the Second Anointing?

When you use obscure terms, it tends to blur things. I am not familiar with terms Rockslider. I am familiar with ideas. Explain the ideas, and I will give you my thoughts.

These are all rhetorical questions (please do not answer them here), which may be of value to you to understand the audience you are posting to.

*shrugs* Already understand the audience XD. And a hurdle is a hurdle, they'll set it up, I'll jump it and prepare for the next. It may be 3 feet high or 3000 feet high, I'll jump it all the same.

Me personally, no. If I have understood and interpreted what you have written on this board so far. I'm more intrigued by individuals with years of rock solid, school of hard knocks experience. Spouses, children, callings, work and much pain with the occasional epiphanies and beautiful days.

Yah, it was pretty apparent in your response. There are people who are interested out there though, so I try and find 'em. My experience differs from other people's that it does.

Please read this post and see if it helps to explain better what I'm trying to say.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 20#p384420

I read it.

Warm fuzzy, feelings/thoughts/insights based on very limited information is a common theme and a red flag for many, even if they are special autistic knowledge/belief. There may be much that you can learn here. I'd suggest approaching it as a student, not a teacher.

Don't judge a book by it's cover Rockslider. You have already made some assumptions about me, or else your words would be organized differently.

Oh by the way, to me, there is no student-teacher relationship. There is simply learning. I hold all on equal levels. Children, in many senses, can be far more intuitive and intelligent than adults are in this sense. Despise not where you get knowledge, because the height of it's stature.

[_TAO]

Hello,
I just want to go on record and say Mr. TAO posts in a respectable manner. I appreciate his earnestness, and measured responses.

Thank you. =).

Mr. TAO, reading the JoD themselves would be of tremendous value to your Mormonism education. I would follow that up with Talmage to balance out that perspective. Then I would suggest a thorough reading of Jospeh F. Smith & B.H. Roberts followed by Mr. Hugh Nibley (one of the few Mormon scholars to not use a middle initial) in order to understand the transition to apologetics. Once you've muddled around with Mr. Nibley then I'd suggest you take a shot at FAIR. The bottom line is you can sense, or see, a sort of evolution within Mormon theology.

The fog crawls on little cat feet, that it does. Slowly and surely it comes. So will the reading.

It is important though, to remember that personal thoughts are of more value than reading, that it is. So it be important for one to read books, but to keep one's heart on one's ideals, that it is.

Start comparing and contrasting what former prophets and scholars have said to the new ones, and then bounce that off of what is being preached from the pulpit at General Conference, Ensign articles, and approved CES manuals.

*shrugs* I know the Lord changes things for what is best for people at the time. Changes in doctrine don't really have a big effect on me as long as I talk to the Lord about them.

It's a big effort, but eventually you'll get what we're talking about.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Not sure, I already may get it, or maybe I don't. Alas, it doesn't make much of a difference To be honest XD.

[_TAO]

Those with autistic spectrum disorders sometimes plead that their differences exempt them from normal behavioral expectations or cognitive processing.

Let me explain it to you.

I may learn how you act socially by building a model. However, this model, though very accurate, is not the same model as the real person's thinking.

Thus, I can never understand how you think, I can merely understand how to build a model that thinks similarly to how you think in the way I think.

Those who have normal and above language skills are fully able to use that compensatory strength to work through issues such as Mormonism. Even Temple Grandin (I would not be surprised if she has Mormon cultural heritage) says that coping with environments in conflict with each other intensifies those autistic characteristics.

Because we are black and white thinkers.

I presume that cognitive dissonance is therefore a contributing factor, since they are so similar. Look at the cognitive dissonance of a religion that claims to not change its most basic doctrines/beliefs while, in fact, like the title of liberty, it flutters constantly in the wind.

I often find this is because people don't look fully into the possible explanations. That's another gift Autistic's have... when focused, we can explore every possible detail about something. Meaning we sometimes find things others' don't.

Liberty, or intellectual straight-jacket? Contrast past teachings with present ones, and you will realize that the novel 1984, with constant redefining of words and denial of history can be applied very accurately to Mormon culture.

You are looking to the wrong person to determine what is 'Mormon' MCB ;-)

Just think of it. If you can resolve these issues, a painful process, your Asperger's might melt away into something quite manageable.

Lol, my Aspies is manageable XD.

People are actually surprised to hear I have it at school. I don't have the major 'difficulties' of asperger's anymore. And because of such, they have forgotten how I used to be about 6 years ago... I am not the same person, that I am not.

Same with my Tourette's. People go on in life without knowing I have it.

[_TAO]

That would confirm even more bias. since you are getting the information through extra filters/people.

That's why I didn't really make a judgment over it.

Size of text has nothing to do with quote mining, and tone I think is your bias coming through again. Quote mining is taking text out of context, so you would need to show that a person is doing that. If you followed Darth J and Simon on this you would see that Simon failed to show how Darth was quoting out of context. Of course maybe you could provide some of this text in order to view the evidence.

I was explaining my definition of text mining. If there are other definitions, oh well. You now know mine. And as said, I was talking about other critics, not the one who used posts up above, because he did a thorough job of finding it throughout the JoD.

There are a lot of people who quote BY on both sides who say this or that that may be wrong.

Yes, it's just after reading those parts of the JoD from the text.... I have to say I can't figure out how people are like "he's evil, EVIL!!!!". It makes no sense to me... that interpretation would not blend well with the rest of his responses.

I don't know any rue anti-Mormons, except maybe Ed Decker. It's not hard to find quotes from BY, and there is nothing wrong with any side looking through what he or anyone else has said.

As said Themis, talking about people outside of this thread (and outside of this message board mostly I believe), posting obscure quotes from JoD without context. The statement I made was an 'aside', if you want to use the literary term.

Take out the whole and I think you got it. No one can usually quote thw whole, which is why it is called a quote. Doing it to alter the person intent or meaning is quote mining, but you need to provide evidence that a person is doing such.

Not trying to prove it to anybody, merely saying how I find some people ridiculous how they quote it now. Was a comment to myself in a way of sorts.

Sorry don't know who these anti are supposed to be, but quote mining is not unusual for some critics and apologists.

Agreed. I was talking about some of the rather extreme ones, I just didn't realize it was THIS MUCH of a quote mining.

We usually can't do two things at once, but yes people can be mean one moment and very kind the next. People are mixed bag of emotions, prejudices, etc that can come and go very quickly. BY was no exception, and yes he said and thought a few bad things.

Lol, those people, if they exist at all are chaotic. No, BY was not one of those chaotic people, that he wasn't.

I like rocksliders post to you. You are only seeing what you want. I say this becuase you haven't really read anything about the man, and much of what you know from others.

As said, I don't have control over what I see (or if I do it is so utterly limited). I sometimes see things I don't want. Often times in fact. I was merely stating what I see.

I never said it didn't , but yes of course you don't think you are deluded. :)

Don't we all XD.

Or we could be the first people to proclaim ourselves deluded 0.o ;-).

[Guest]

That's why I didn't really make a judgment over it.

You've already admitted to doing just that. LOL

So when you say quote mining we will know you are not talking about quote mining as it's really defined.

Yes, it's just after reading those parts of the JoD from the text.... I have to say I can't figure out how people are like "he's evil, EVIL!!!!". It makes no sense to me... that interpretation would not blend well with the rest of his responses.

I've seen both the extremes of interpretation of BY. Yours as well as those who hate him.

Lol, those people, if they exist at all are chaotic. No, BY was not one of those chaotic people, that he wasn't.

You need to get out a little more. We are all a bag of emotions, both positive and negative, and yes BY had his negative side. We all do to some extent. I can not understand how anyone who actually has studied this stuff(you are not included here since it's obvious, even by your own admission, you haven't) would not agree that BY has said some some bad stuff.

Don't we all XD.

I probably am still in some areas, and yes I definitely was a a believing LDS.

Or we could be the first people to proclaim ourselves deluded 0.o ;-).

I wouldn't be the first or the last. Come and join the club.

[_TAO]

You've already admitted to doing just that. LOL

*head-desk* shoulda been more specific. I didn't make a MAJOR judgment about it. Srry.

So when you say quote mining we will know you are not talking about quote mining as it's really defined.

Fine with me XD.

I've seen both the extremes of inte3rpetation of BY. Yours as well as those who hate him.

*shrugs* I'm not a normal person XD.

You need to get out a little more. We are all a bag of emotions, both positive and negative, and yes BY had his negative side. We all do to some extent. I can not understand how anyone who actually has studied this stuff(you are not included here since it's obvious, even by your own admission, you haven't) would not agree that BY has said some some bad stuff.

Perhaps some people. But I find that I can't stand emotions that are ovely negative - and i strive to eliminate them asap. People who don't do this I find to be chaotic.

*shrugs* As said, I think you take what he says out of the context he wished it taken in.

I probably am still in some areas, and yes I definitely was a a believing LDS.

I wouldn't be the first or the last. Come and join the club.

Nevertheless, I find delusion quite pointless that I do, so no thanks.

[_Themis]

*head-desk* shoulda been more specific. I didn't make a MAJOR judgment about it. Srry.

Still a judgment, and I think you made a fairly big judgment on it, based not on the facts but on how you want to see BY based on your feelings.

Fine with me XD.

It's no loss for me, but you cannot be taken seriously if you want to have your own definitions that are not generally agreed on.

Perhaps some people. But I find that I can't stand emotions that are ovely negative - and i strive to eliminate them asap. People who don't do this I find to be chaotic.

I don't like them either, and don't feel them hardly at all, but BY sure seemed to like them a little more. I wouldn't describe one as chaotic just because they can have very negative or positive emotions.

*shrugs* As said, I think you take what he says out of the context he wished it taken in.

You don't know enough about it to say that, and not just because you don't know much about BY historical evidence, but also you don't know what I have said or think specifically about BY. Again you would need to look at the particular text and what you think the proper context is.

Nevertheless, I find delusion quite pointless that I do, so no thanks.

There is no one quite so deluded as those who think they have none. LOL

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Rockslider,

Reference the middle initial thing. It was a way to differentiate men within the early Mormon dynastic families. It eventually became a formalized way of recognizing a leader or powerful male within the Mormon community. In other words, if I were, say, just a lowly Bishop it would be highly unlikely I would be introduced as Bishop Cam "NC" 4Me. I would most likely be introduced as Bishop 4Me. However, once I became a General Authority the middle initial would most likely be used as a sign of respect for the office I attained. It's typically an honor reserved for people who hold respect within the Mormon community.

V/R
Dr. Cam "NC" 4Me

[_MCB]

MCB says: The individual reader supplies the "voice," and its inflections.

MCB, one's own belief in this statement has caused one to fall to it's effects.

Thanks for acknowledging my new sig. The reader must carefully evaluate whether he/she is projecting their own personality into the material, or whether this is genuinely what the writer meant.

BY was notoriously inconsistent in what he said. Some of this may have to do with the audience. He may have been bipolar, along with being a sociopath. You could, in particular, look at his quotes from 1856 and 1857 to understand that.

I am sorry that you have difficulty in acknowledging that people are different at different times. It must cause great difficulties for you.

[_RockSlider]

Hello Mr. Rockslider,

Reference the middle initial thing. It was a way to differentiate men within the early Mormon dynastic families. It eventually became a formalized way of recognizing a leader or powerful male within the Mormon community. In other words, if I were, say, just a lowly Bishop it would be highly unlikely I would be introduced as Bishop Cam "NC" 4Me. I would most likely be introduced as Bishop 4Me. However, once I became a General Authority the middle initial would most likely be used as a sign of respect for the office I attained. It's typically an honor reserved for people who hold respect within the Mormon community.

V/R
Dr. Cam "NC" 4Me

Well I feel silly having never picked up on that before. But, thanks to your help, it's all coming into view now. I can hear the pre-entry "instruction" to the non-existent inner-church's ordinances. Now in addition to you're never letting the G's touch the floor, you will go forth, with your newly found middle initial, as a sign of your membership. But always remember and never forget that this sign is reserved and to be used only by the members of this society and special priesthood. Let them that have eyes to see and eyes to hear understand.

Sigh of relief; I was a bit concerned that my brain hiccup was a bit sacrilegious, but now, seeing the honor and prestige associated with this, it surely shows my naturally good ears and eyes.