Fox News on Warren Jeffs Trial

[_Daniel Peterson]

Provo,

Your growing obsession with Provo, such that you're now calling me "Provo," is exceedingly bizarre.

I'm not from Provo, don't live in Provo, am not posting from Provo, and have said nothing about Provo. Brian David Mitchell wasn't from Provo, and wasn't tried in Provo. Warren Jeffs isn't from Provo, and isn't being tried in Provo. Provo is irrelevant to this thread.

And, in any event, there's nothing intrinsically bad about Provo. We can't all be Masters of the Universe like yourself, with swanky palaces and penthouses in Paris, London, New York, and Tokyo; most ordinary peasant-class Americans, not just me, live in pretty ordinary towns and suburbs (like Oxnard, Littleton, Wheaton, and Dubuque). It's quite unfeeling of you to look down your pince-nez at all of the rest of us just because we're inferior to Your Lordship.

Unless you are admitting that Mitchell's doctrine had common ground w Mormon doctrine, your response makes no sense at all.

Of course Mitchell's doctrine had common ground with Mormon doctrine.

That's why I was called in as an expert witness by the federal prosecutors for his competency hearing and his trial.

your response makes no sense at all. Not unusual for you but it's really apple and oranges.

No, it's a barrel of good healthy Golden Delicious apples and a rotten, worm-eaten crabapple.

So my response makes complete sense. Which is not unusual for me.

The LDS Mormon church is worried about this Jeffs trial as well it should be.

Being the Important Person that you are, you probably have sources within the highest leadership circles that I can only dream about. Still, from my peasant's perspective, while I can't imagine that the Church is overjoyed about the Jeffs trial I also don't think that it's in crisis mode or terror-stricken.

He and Smith are carbon copies in their lives and actions.

Not even close.

So's your old man, your mother wears army boots, and neener neener neener

It strikes me as juvenile to demand instant gratification the way you're doing.

I've told you that I'm going to write a substantial article on the topic. You can wait. Or not. I really don't care.

If six months exceeds your time horizon, that's a problem. But not for me.

This is not the first time you have made assertions without backing it up. Saying your going to write some article to many times is an excuse not to back it up.

You can judge, when my article appears, whether I backed my position up.

Can't wait that long? Seek help.

Will is famous around here for that. If you are going to dispute something one says then you should at least provide some substance here and now why they are wrong, and not try and get out of it by saying you are going to write about it later. You already said you have some ideas on what to write, so you should be able to provide something. Don't blame us for calling you to back up what you assert.

I'll write on what I want when I want to write on it.

Demand and criticize all you like. The more unpleasant and insulting you get about it, the less disposed I am to do you any favors. And I wasn't very disposed in the first place.

[_Darth J]

I'm not from Provo, don't live in Provo, am not posting from Provo, and have said nothing about Provo.

"You, my brother, and attempt to talk about Provo?"

"I have said nothing about Provo....."

[_MrStakhanovite]

God damn, it's good to see you posting again.

[_Themis]

It strikes me as juvenile to demand instant gratification the way you're doing.

I have not demanded at all. I have only asked you to provide something to back up your assertions. In no way would writing an article about it sometime in the future stop you from doing that if you say you already have an idea of what you are going to say. I doubt you are doing any ground breaking research that you do not want to prematurely go public before presenting it in some scholarly work as Don's is doing with the kinderhook plates. I have not teased him about becuase I understand that he cannot for very good reasons. I have not seen that from you, so I think there really shouldn't be any reason not to back up your assertions.

I've told you that I'm going to write a substantial article on the topic. You can wait. Or not. I really don't care.

If six months exceeds your time horizon, that's a problem. But not for me.

Certainly I hope I will be around in six months, and would be willing to read it, but see no reason you can't discuss it now.

You can judge, when my article appears, whether I backed my position up.

Can't wait that long? Seek help.

All I have done is asked you to back it up, and teased you for your dodging.

I'll write on what I want when I want to write on it.

Never said you couldn't, but I also don't see any reasonable reason you cannot back it up. With your dodging on the other thread with the Book of Abraham issue, I can only surmise you may not have anything to back it up that Warren jeffs group is really that much different then what BY and Joseph Smith were doing, and that they are much more like the early church then the LDS are today.

Demand and criticize all you like. The more unpleasant and insulting you get about it, the less disposed I am to do you any favors. And I wasn't very disposed in the first place.

I have not demanded anything, and only criticized your continued avoidance of this issue and the one on the other thread. Maybe if you could provide reasonable reasons I would be fine with that, but you will probably view that as a demand as well. Oh well. I have also not insulted you other then to throw back your own insult to me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The basic reason is aesthetic.

I have in mind a fairly lengthy article making my case. To give only part of my case would be unfulfilling to me and wouldn't do my argument justice, and I'm not willing to give this place the amount of time and effort that would be required to lay out my full case.

It's all or nothing for me on this matter, and I choose nothing.

That's it. Like it or not.

[_kamenraider]

Hi Bro. Peterson,

I'm interested in reading what your thoughts are about Mormon fundamentalism. I hope you don't make the mistake, which Brian Hales and others usually tend to do, of lumping Mormon fundamentalists together when discussing their beliefs. An example of this can be found in this entence from Max Anderson's article "Fundamentalists" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: "Fundamentalists claim to believe in the four LDS standard works, the early history of the Church, and the prophets of the restoration up to, and including, John Taylor." I won't get into details, but this statement is NOT representative of the beliefs of fundamentalists in general, and could be very misleading for those who are unfamiliar with the subject.

Also, since it's relevant to Mormon fundamentalism, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about the topic of this thread:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19443

[_Buffalo]

Yet you can't provide how they are different in regards to Mormonism.

I said that I'm probably going to write something on the topic within the next six months or so.

Which means that I'm probably going to write something on the topic within the next six months or so.

So, since I'm probably going to write something on the topic within the next six months or so, you probably shouldn't conclude too confidently that I can't say anything about it.

Because, don't forget, I'm probably going to write something on the topic within the next six months or so.

I'd be genuinely interested in reading that.

[_Buffalo]

Provo,

Unless you are admitting that Mitchell's doctrine had common ground w Mormon doctrine, your response makes no sense at all.  Not unusual for you but it's really apple and oranges.  

The LDS Mormon church is worried about this Jeffs trial as well it should be.  He and Smith are carbon copies in their lives and actions.

In many ways they're very similar. But I don't think Smith ever sodomized a little boy, as Jeffs seems to have done.

[_Themis]

The basic reason is aesthetic.

I have in mind a fairly lengthy article making my case. To give only part of my case would be unfulfilling to me and wouldn't do my argument justice, and I'm not willing to give this place the amount of time and effort that would be required to lay out my full case.

It's all or nothing for me on this matter, and I choose nothing.

That's it. Like it or not.

My expereince is that those who have real substance to what they assert will almost always provide it. Now this is in regards to your statement that I am completely wrong when I said "They are more in line with how Joseph Smith and BY were running things then the LDS church is today". This of course was comparing the FLDS to the early church of Joseph Smith and BY. I suspect your article will not really address this, as you have failed to do here as well. That does not mean I don't think you can write a good article on Mormon Fundamentalism and wish you well.

[_RockSlider]

The basic reason is aesthetic.

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aesthetics (also spelled æsthetics or esthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty.[1] It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.[2] More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature."[3][4]

Sounds pretty abstract.