Peterson, Hamblin, Schryver Online Antics: Request for Help

[_RayAgostini]

.

[_RayAgostini]

Ray,

Would Will's comments be permissible if they were directed at your daughter?

They're rather timid, in comparison to "crack whore", meant in all seriousness by - an exmo. Had Will and my daughter had any exchanges, my guess is that he'd have come out second best.

[_Cylon]

I also wonder why folks like Chris and Don still attend and present at FAIR conferences.

I also wonder. I notice that Bradley is giving a presentation on temple worship in the Lost 116 Pages. Given that those pages don't exist, I wonder how he will have anything of value to say on the subject. Might as well present on architectural advances in Atlantis. Or geological formations in the caves of Agartha. Talk about irrelevancies. Is there anything on that list of FAIR presentations that appears to address anything real and substantive? This is the best they have? Peterson's screeds. Welch's tired old chiasmus foolishness? More white guys talking about how women are "partners" with men in the church? More misinformation about human sexuality? More dissembling on the Book of Abraham?

I would be very interested to hear Rosemary Avance's talk on parallels between Mormon conversion and deconversion stories. I might be slightly biased, though. Not too long ago she interviewed me for research on her PhD dissertation. I thought she was super nice and it was really interesting getting her take on Mormons (she's not Mormon herself, by the way).

Of course, the fact that a talk half about people leaving the church might be the most interesting thing there doesn't really speak all that well for the conference...

[_Kishkumen]

I also wonder. I notice that Bradley is giving a presentation on temple worship in the Lost 116 Pages. Given that those pages don't exist, I wonder how he will have anything of value to say on the subject. Might as well present on architectural advances in Atlantis. Or geological formations in the caves of Agartha. Talk about irrelevancies.

LOL. I can assure you that he has plenty to say on this topic. And, when it comes to understanding where Joseph Smith was at in his thought before 1830, what he has to say is plenty relevant. If you don't care about Joseph Smith pre-1830, then, yes, you may view the entire thing as irrelevant. What Don is doing is essentially rewriting the history of the development of Joseph Smith's thought concerning the temple. His discoveries are extremely cool. I should know, since I have been talking with him about Joseph Smith for the past decade.

You know, you can think Mormonism is completely bogus and stupid, but that would not change the overall historical significance of the LDS temple. How many of those things dot the globe now?

[_Kishkumen]

I also wonder why folks like Chris and Don still attend and present at FAIR conferences.

Perhaps because it is a convenient place to engage others who are serious about Mormonism before the start of the academic year. The options right now are Sunstone, FAIR, the MHA or the JWHA. The AAR has precious little on Mormonism, although that is changing. In the future I hope we see more. It would be cool to see the development of a scholarly Mormon Studies conference that covers the gamut of topics on Mormonism. As things stand, one finds a little here, a little there, and it is of mixed quality. A solid Mormon Studies conference could be a powerful force in the development of the field.

Perhaps "the narrator" could tell us whether anything is in the pipeline.

[_beastie]

Garbo, I recall that you were the one who originally said Will committed adultery while he was, I believe, a member of the bishopric. I also recall that you said he was released for it but did not incur any further punishment. Is that correct?

Are you referring to this post?

viewtopic.php?p=386549#p386549

Something I am finding ironic is that when someone goes "less active" (don't you just love that term?) then all kinds of rumors get started about what terrible awful things that person has gotten involved in. But so long as someone keeps up appearances, or remains "active" then the people in the ward can pretty much overlook all kinds of bad things that person has done or is doing. I get divorced and get disillusioned with the church for a few months, and now I hear that I'm going "lesbian." And yet I have very good reasons to believe that a prominent member of my old ward committed adultery, got the woman pregnant, caused a divorce, but never was disciplined (except for getting kicked out of the bishopric) and he's still going to church like nothing ever happened, teaches Sunday School like he's some gospel authority, and acts like he's some righteous bigwig who hobnobs with general authorities.

Playing the game and keeping up appearances is all that really matters.

Sure sounds like Will, a righteous bigwig hobnobbing with GAs who teaches SS and thinks he's a gospel authority. It would suck to have more than one such wind-bag in a ward, but I don't remember her naming Will.

[_Equality]

I also wonder. I notice that Bradley is giving a presentation on temple worship in the Lost 116 Pages. Given that those pages don't exist, I wonder how he will have anything of value to say on the subject. Might as well present on architectural advances in Atlantis. Or geological formations in the caves of Agartha. Talk about irrelevancies.

LOL. I can assure you that he has plenty to say on this topic. And, when it comes to understanding where Joseph Smith was at in his thought before 1830, what he has to say is plenty relevant. If you don't care about Joseph Smith pre-1830, then, yes, you may view the entire thing as irrelevant. What Don is doing is essentially rewriting the history of the development of Joseph Smith's thought concerning the temple. His discoveries are extremely cool. I should know, since I have been talking with him about Joseph Smith for the past decade.

You know, you can think Mormonism is completely bogus and stupid, but that would not change the overall historical significance of the LDS temple. How many of those things dot the globe now?

All right, I was being unnecessarily snarky. The title just struck me as amusing. I have no doubt Don's presentation will be interesting and substantive, which is more than I can say for some of the others. I also took a shot at my former law professor, who in fairness always has interesting things to say even if I don't agree with his conclusions. And if I lived in Utah I might even attend the FAIR conference, so I will cop to hypocrisy as well.

[_MsJack]

Garbo, I recall that you were the one who originally said Will committed adultery while he was, I believe, a member of the bishopric. I also recall that you said he was released for it but did not incur any further punishment. Is that correct?

Are you referring to this post?

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 49#p386549

Something I am finding ironic is that when someone goes "less active" (don't you just love that term?) then all kinds of rumors get started about what terrible awful things that person has gotten involved in. But so long as someone keeps up appearances, or remains "active" then the people in the ward can pretty much overlook all kinds of bad things that person has done or is doing. I get divorced and get disillusioned with the church for a few months, and now I hear that I'm going "lesbian." And yet I have very good reasons to believe that a prominent member of my old ward committed adultery, got the woman pregnant, caused a divorce, but never was disciplined (except for getting kicked out of the bishopric) and he's still going to church like nothing ever happened, teaches Sunday School like he's some gospel authority, and acts like he's some righteous bigwig who hobnobs with general authorities.

Playing the game and keeping up appearances is all that really matters.

Sure sounds like Will, a righteous bigwig hobnobbing with GAs who teaches SS and thinks he's a gospel authority. It would suck to have more than one such wind-bag in a ward, but I don't remember her naming Will.

I just want to speak up now and discourage people from pursuing this. Even if it were true that Garbo was talking about William, it is absolutely, 100% none of our business.

Focusing on personal sins such as adultery is what certain LDS apologists do to people they disagree with (Simon Southerton and Shawn McCraney come to mind). Let's not be like that.

[_Chap]

.... <stuff about Schryver> .....

I just want to speak up now and discourage people from pursuing this. Even if it were true that Garbo was talking about William, it is absolutely, 100% none of our business.

Focusing on personal sins such as adultery is what certain LDS apologists do to people they disagree with (Simon Southerton and Shawn McCraney come to mind). Let's not be like that.

+10

I have no interest in Schryver's personal life, except perhaps in so far as he might make it an issue online, and even then I'd rather not get involved in compounding his lack of taste.

[_just me]

Plus infinity to Jack's post.