FAIR Conference 2025

[Kishkumen]

Not to challenge your expertise, Doctor, but I would rank Ostler much higher. In fact, right next to Midgley.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

What are the odds that FAIR will decide to award DCP a third lifetime achievement award?

[Doctor Scratch]

Not to challenge your expertise, Doctor, but I would rank Ostler much higher. In fact, right next to Midgley.

I appreciate your perspective, Reverend, and certainly think there is room for discussion/debate as far as these rankings are concerned. Part of the difficulty--for me--is the rather tricky question of what we mean by "anger." For example, should someone get a higher ranking because their public outbursts are more volcanic? What about someone whose anger is more of the simmering, long-lasting variety? The comparison between Ostler and Midgley is an interesting and instructive one, I think. Ostler is known for his nearly apoplectic outbursts, perhaps most notably during his infamous appearance on "Faith Promoting Rumor," where he completely blew up and wound up making some remarkably disturbing threats. But Ostler tends to show up, making a big scene, and then disappear. It's like: things will set him off, he'll explode with rage, and then we won't hear anything from/about him for long stretches of time.

Midgley, on the other hand: has he ever had the kind of big, rage-fest-style outbursts that Ostler has? I believe Midgley *is* angry, and that his antics stem from a very deep-seated anger, but Midgley has always come across more as this sort of meanly vindictive and sadistic kind of a person. He's vicious and seems to take a sort of disquietingly repulsive relish in treating others with cruelty. He is a key piece of the Mopologetic tendency towards bullying, in my opinion. So, it's like: who is angrier--Midgley or Ostler? Ostler's outbursts definitely tend to be more intense, but Midgley's sadism and cruelty is practically off the charts.

Meanwhile, you have people like Gee and Wyatt, who almost never seem to be openly "angry," but you can sense this kind of simmering resentment in a lot of what they do--it comes bubbling up in their complaints about various things, or in (e.g.) Gee's passive-aggressive remarks about Ritner upon Ritner's passing. And Wyatt ultimately admitted the long-term grudge he's been carrying towards the Tanners. But does this count as being "more angry" compared to Ostler's bristling, in-your-face hostility? It's a tough question.

[Kishkumen]

Meanwhile, you have people like Gee and Wyatt, who almost never seem to be openly "angry," but you can sense this kind of simmering resentment in a lot of what they do--it comes bubbling up in their complaints about various things, or in (e.g.) Gee's passive-aggressive remarks about Ritner upon Ritner's passing. And Wyatt ultimately admitted the long-term grudge he's been carrying towards the Tanners. But does this count as being "more angry" compared to Ostler's bristling, in-your-face hostility? It's a tough question.

Gee is a fine example to raise in contrast with Ostler. I agree that there does seem to be more of a simmering resentment there. In the end, that emotion is more corrosive and toxic than Ostler's passionate, stormy outbursts. Still, I don't know that I would say Ostler lacks the simmering rage but rather can't contain it in public contexts. Gee and Wyatt are better able to sublimate the demonstrative aspects of their anger, whereas Ostler goes from simmering to boiling over in public discussions. It could be, however, that you are entirely correct. I do respond more negatively to the Ostlerian public rage and bullying than Gee's more passive aggressive approach.

[Tom]

I’ve pleased to announce that things are coming together nicely for the FAIR Conference 2025, which will be held August 6-8 at the Thanksgiving Point Show Barn (I am not making this up) in Lehi, Utah (ditto). I have heard, but cannot yet confirm, that the first 20 registrants will have first dibs on reserving overnight accommodations in the well-appointed barn stalls. I can confirm that this year’s conference will feature plenty of reinterpretation, reframing, and painful arguments.

A few notes: it seems that having the Valiant Conference as a conference co-host was a one-year experiment and won’t be repeated. It also seems that the Proprietor has been restored to his rightful place as the conference’s final speaker.

Speaking of the Proprietor, I would note that I prophesied on January 1 of this year that his 2025 conference paper would consist of “present[ing] a book report of sorts, appealing to two recent books and drawing on some blog posts on those books to characterize Brigham Young as a paternalistic racist who opposed slavery.” Let’s see how I did with my prophecy.

Here is the schedule:

August 6

6:30 PM – Registration & mingling (note: any attendees who engage in inappropriate mingling will be excommunicated from the conference)

Keynote: Aaron Sherinian

Fluent in Our Faith: Identifying Evidence of the Glad Tidings of the Gospel in Our Everyday Reality

Notes: Mormonism watchers will recall that Jacob Hansen and his colleagues lost their minds in January 2024 when the LDS Church announced the hiring of Br’er Sherinian as Managing Director of the Church Communication Department for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It seems that Br’er Sherinian had published several social media posts expressing support for same-sex marriage and transgender rights. I expect a lively Q&A session following Br’er Sherinian’s remarks. Perhaps, even, some friendly musket fire.

Well, the Q&A session wasn’t lively, but some church members are furious about Br’er Sherinian’s response to one of Scott Gordon’s questions. Gordon asked:

So when you first came onboard the church, there was a lot of online flak, should we say, and people even—I’ve gotten a few questions here asking directly whether or not you support the Family Proclamation—and how was that for you, when you first came onboard? Has it improved and how do you deal with that?

Here is Sherinian’s response (please excuse my transcription errors):

I’ve learned a number of things, and I’ve taken counsel from some people that I admire and love and that I sustain. And one of the things that I’ve learned is to study carefully something that doesn’t come natural to me, and that’s in Doctrine and Covenants 101, I believe—the idea about being still. And sometimes I thought that being still meant doing nothing. But being still is active. And it means allowing for some things to happen so that some better things can take place.

So you used the term flak. I’ll call it, I’ll call it dialogue, I’ll call it some critique, I’ll call it whatever you want to call it. One of the things that I’ve learned is that when there’s in the internet age, and in our current reality, we want to react immediately. That’s a tactic in certain parts of communication. But when it comes to you, sometimes the best thing to do is to be still. There’s real value in giving a moment for you to reflect and to let the other people that are talking with or maybe at you, some time.

The other thing I’ve learned is that I got some quick advice when there were things coming at me—you know, I’m talking to a room of people who know what it’s like to put yourself out there—so you receive the same sort of, you have the same sort of reality in your own life. Someone said to me—in a well-meaning way—“Well, don’t take it personally.” There is nothing more personal. I take it personally, because I think the person who’s taking issue with me, or who’s criticizing me or who has something to serve me, they’re probably taking it very personally. And that’s rough. But if I really want to be a peacemaker, if I really want to follow his counsel, I probably have to take it personally. Not to react or to be rude, not to be reactionary or ruthless, but to be real. And to say to myself, “That person on the other end of the line, if you will—the proverbial line—is expressing something very personal, and what are they trying to say? They love the Lord and they’re expressing something that they’re working through. So maybe one of the best things that I can do is not to be weak, not to let things that are untrue go unresolved or unacknowledged, but if I am going to be a peacemaker, I have to see that it’s personal for them. And there’s something driving the question. I hope that answers the question.

And of course, I’ve been very clear and my role, my job is to support the leaders of the church and to be a servant of the Lord. That’s what we’re all doing here, that’s what we’re trying to do. And I’ve answered those questions and I know that they’ve been answered many times, but the question is, when someone says to you, “Uh, don’t take it personally,” what they’re probably saying to you is, “Don’t let it stop you from doing the work you’re doing.”

I hope that’s what I can say to some of you—I wish I could reach out to some of you when there’s hate or when there’s critique. And if I ever tell you, “Don’t take it personally,” please stop me. Take it personally, but don’t let it stop you from your personal calling to help people understand, to help people express their questions and to have an informed [clip ends].

https://x.com/thecougchron/status/19534 ... 21711?s=46

Righteous Latter-day Saints on X are now raking Sherinian over the coals. Cwic, for example, wrote:

The silence from senior spokesmen and leaders in Salt Lake when directly asked about the Family Proclamation isn’t just disappointing—it’s revealing.

This isn’t a minor thing. It’s a megaphone. It tells the watching world, and the Saints, that when confronted with one of the most clear, prophetic declarations of our time, the best response is no response.

In effect, it says: “When the Family Proclamation comes up… best to sidestep it. It's messy."

When someone pointed out that Gordon did not directly ask Sherinian whether he supported the Family Proclamation, Cwic responded, “You didn't hear the whole thing. I was there. The response you saw was not the question on the Family Proclamation. There was a question which said, "Do you support the Family Proclamation?" Nothing more, nothing less.”

Well, that’s wrong.

Other examples of friendly musket fire from the faithful on X:

“We have weak spineless men leading this church, and this is reflected in the body.”

“All part of Satan's agenda to infiltrate the Church with tacit leadership approval. Very troubling.”

“Totally spineless. He’s really selling it with that high-council voice though.”

“He’s weak; we need someone with firm conviction and confidence. He’s too worried he might offend someone & that’s what Liberalism brings about. He should be fired.”

“Sherinian has a very ‘Tim Ballard in a 3 piece suit’ vibe.”

“Aaron Sherinian is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, he needs to be removed immediately.”

“This guy is a fraud. Sorry it's just true. He's using all the left's faux compassion language to dodge a simple question.”

“The First Presidency does not support the Family Proclamation. If they did, then they would never have hired this person. Russell Nelson signed it, but he didn’t write it.”

“That was the longest and gayest non answer I’ve ever heard. Aaron Sherinion is a globohomo and is doing nothing but showing the world that the church is in favor of men being betas not alphas.”

“He is unapologetically a leftist, globalist, pro LGBTQ activist. What we care about is why @Ch_JesusChrist chose this man to speak for it. People rightly question the motivations of the church leaders that would make this choice seemingly putting appealing to Babylon over standing for truth.”

“I just wish I knew what that goblin Sherinian said at the conference. It was evil for our leaders to select such a person to be in such a prominent role. The modern church is becoming such a clown show. It is disastrous that such an evil man is shaping how the Church is perceived in the wider world. Sherinian is a demon. A subversive figure. A man who should never be near any levers of influence or power in Christ's Church. Nelson and Oaks should be ashamed of themselves.”

“Although he is ‘expert in many words,’ he is in company with Sherem (Jacob 7), Nehor (Alma 1), and Korihor (Alma 30) in his use of pleasing words and flattery to ‘lull them away into a carnal security.’”

ETA: an individual, referring to Sherinian as the “devil’s hand puppet,” writes: “He should be excommunicated along with everyone who called him. His call was no accident. If secret combinations need to be ferretted out of the church, then brazen open colluding with those who openly crave to bring the very darkest of evil into the church must also.”

I think this calls for a showdown at high noon today at the Show Barn’s OK Corral.

Gordon has attempted to calm the faithful:

I love being able to emcee the FAIR conference. @ldsfair All the speakers have done a fabulous job. People are talking about how much they've enjoyed the conference. The speakers come in for no pay and present for us.

After their talks they are subjected to a Q&A session where people text questions from around the world. Sometimes their off-the- cuff, on-the-spot answers are not the way they would answer if they had time to think about it.

I would hope we latter-day [sic] Saints give people grace and we don't tear apart and dissect their spur-of- the-moment answers to judge them-even if we disagree with them. We have to take enough flak from the critics.

i would disagree with Gordon’s suggestion that Sherinian’s response was “spur of the moment.” Some FAIR Q&A responses are undoubtedly that, but I strongly suspect that Sherinian’s answer was prepared and practiced.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I’ve pleased to announce that things are coming together nicely for the FAIR Conference 2025, which will be held August 6-8 at the Thanksgiving Point Show Barn (I am not making this up) in Lehi, Utah (ditto). I have heard, but cannot yet confirm, that the first 20 registrants will have first dibs on reserving overnight accommodations in the well-appointed barn stalls. I can confirm that this year’s conference will feature plenty of reinterpretation, reframing, and painful arguments.

A few notes: it seems that having the Valiant Conference as a conference co-host was a one-year experiment and won’t be repeated. It also seems that the Proprietor has been restored to his rightful place as the conference’s final speaker.

Speaking of the Proprietor, I would note that I prophesied on January 1 of this year that his 2025 conference paper would consist of “present[ing] a book report of sorts, appealing to two recent books and drawing on some blog posts on those books to characterize Brigham Young as a paternalistic racist who opposed slavery.” Let’s see how I did with my prophecy.

Here is the schedule:

August 6

6:30 PM – Registration & mingling (note: any attendees who engage in inappropriate mingling will be excommunicated from the conference)

Keynote: Aaron Sherinian

Fluent in Our Faith: Identifying Evidence of the Glad Tidings of the Gospel in Our Everyday Reality

Notes: Mormonism watchers will recall that Jacob Hansen and his colleagues lost their minds in January 2024 when the LDS Church announced the hiring of Br’er Sherinian as Managing Director of the Church Communication Department for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It seems that Br’er Sherinian had published several social media posts expressing support for same-sex marriage and transgender rights. I expect a lively Q&A session following Br’er Sherinian’s remarks. Perhaps, even, some friendly musket fire.

Well, the Q&A session wasn’t lively, but some church members are furious about Br’er Sherinian’s response to one of Scott Gordon’s questions. Gordon asked:

So when you first came onboard the church, there was a lot of online flak, should we say, and people even—I’ve gotten a few questions here asking directly whether or not you support the Family Proclamation—and how was that for you, when you first came onboard? Has it improved and how do you deal with that?

Here is Sherinian’s response (please excuse my transcription errors):

I’ve learned a number of things, and I’ve taken counsel from some people that I admire and love and that I sustain. And one of the things that I’ve learned is to study carefully something that doesn’t come natural to me, and that’s in Doctrine and Covenants 101, I believe—the idea about being still. And sometimes I thought that being still meant doing nothing. But being still is active. And it means allowing for some things to happen so that some better things can take place.

So you used the term flak. I’ll call it, I’ll call it dialogue, I’ll call it some critique, I’ll call it whatever you want to call it. One of the things that I’ve learned is that when there’s in the internet age, and in our current reality, we want to react immediately. That’s a tactic in certain parts of communication. But when it comes to you, sometimes the best thing to do is to be still. There’s real value in giving a moment for you to reflect and to let the other people that are talking with or maybe at you, some time.

The other thing I’ve learned is that I got some quick advice when there were things coming at me—you know, I’m talking to a room of people who know what it’s like to put yourself out there—so you receive the same sort of, you have the same sort of reality in your own life. Someone said to me—in a well-meaning way—“Well, don’t take it personally.” There is nothing more personal. I take it personally, because I think the person who’s taking issue with me, or who’s criticizing me or who has something to serve me, they’re probably taking it very personally. And that’s rough. But if I really want to be a peacemaker, if I really want to follow his counsel, I probably have to take it personally. Not to react or to be rude, not to be reactionary or ruthless, but to be real. And to say to myself, “That person on the other end of the line, if you will—the proverbial line—is expressing something very personal, and what are they trying to say? They love the Lord and they’re expressing something that they’re working through. So maybe one of the best things that I can do is not to be weak, not to let things that are untrue go unresolved or unacknowledged, but if I am going to be a peacemaker, I have to see that it’s personal for them. And there’s something driving the question. I hope that answers the question.

And of course, I’ve been very clear and my role, my job is to support the leaders of the church and to be a servant of the Lord. That’s what we’re all doing here, that’s what we’re trying to do. And I’ve answered those questions and I know that they’ve been answered many times, but the question is, when someone says to you, “Uh, don’t take it personally,” what they’re probably saying to you is, “Don’t let it stop you from doing the work you’re doing.”

I hope that’s what I can say to some of you—I wish I could reach out to some of you when there’s hate or when there’s critique. And if I ever tell you, “Don’t take it personally,” please stop me. Take it personally, but don’t let it stop you from your personal calling to help people understand, to help people express their questions and to have an informed [clip ends].

https://x.com/thecougchron/status/19534 ... 21711?s=46

Righteous Latter-day Saints on X are now raking Sherinian over the coals. Cwic wrote:

The silence from senior spokesmen and leaders in Salt Lake when directly asked about the Family Proclamation isn’t just disappointing—it’s revealing.

This isn’t a minor thing. It’s a megaphone. It tells the watching world, and the Saints, that when confronted with one of the most clear, prophetic declarations of our time, the best response is no response.

In effect, it says: “When the Family Proclamation comes up… best to sidestep it. It's messy."

When someone pointed out that Gordon did not directly ask Sherinian whether he supported the Family Proclamation, Cwic responded, “You didn't hear the whole thing. I was there. The response you saw was not the question on the Family Proclamation. There was a question which said, "Do you support the Family Proclamation?" Nothing more, nothing less.”

Well, that’s wrong.

Other comments on X from the faithful:

“We have weak spineless men leading this church, and this is reflected in the body.”

“All part of Satan's agenda to infiltrate the Church with tacit leadership approval. Very troubling.”

“Totally spineless. He’s really selling it with that high-council voice though.”

“He’s weak; we need someone with firm conviction and confidence. He’s too worried he might offend someone & that’s what Liberalism brings about. He should be fired.”

“Sherinian has a very ‘Tim Ballard in a 3 piece suit’ vibe.”

“Aaron Sherinian is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, he needs to be removed immediately.”

“This guy is a fraud. Sorry it's just true. He's using all the left's faux compassion language to dodge a simple question.”

“The First Presidency does not support the Family Proclamation. If they did, then they would never have hired this person. Russell Nelson signed it, but he didn’t write it.”

“That was the longest and gayest non answer I’ve ever heard. Aaron Sherinion is a globohomo and is doing nothing but showing the world that the church is in favor of men being betas not alphas.”

“He is unapologetically a leftist, globalist, pro LGBTQ activist. What we care about is why @Ch_JesusChrist chose this man to speak for it. People rightly question the motivations of the church leaders that would make this choice seemingly putting appealing to Babylon over standing for truth.”

“I just wish I knew what that goblin Sherinian said at the conference. It was evil for our leaders to select such a person to be in such a prominent role. The modern church is becoming such a clown show. It is disastrous that such an evil man is shaping how the Church is perceived in the wider world. Sherinian is a demon. A subversive figure. A man who should never be near any levers of influence or power in Christ's Church. Nelson and Oaks should be ashamed of themselves.”

“Although he is ‘expert in many words,’ he is in company with Sherem (Jacob 7), Nehor (Alma 1), and Korihor (Alma 30) in his use of pleasing words and flattery to ‘lull them away into a carnal security.’”

Gordon has attempted to calm the faithful:

I love being able to emcee the FAIR conference. @ldsfair All the speakers have done a fabulous job. People are talking about how much they've enjoyed the conference. The speakers come in for no pay and present for us.

After their talks they are subjected to a Q&A session where people text questions from around the world. Sometimes their off-the- cuff, on-the-spot answers are not the way they would answer if they had time to think about it.

I would hope we latter-day [sic] Saints give people grace and we don't tear apart and dissect their spur-of- the-moment answers to judge them-even if we disagree with them. We have to take enough flak from the critics.

i would disagree with Gordon’s suggestion that Sherinian’s response was “spur of the moment.” Some FAIR Q&A responses are undoubtedly that, but I strongly suspect that Sherinian’s answer was prepared and practiced.

Tom,

Thank you for that summary. Were you able to make to Michael Ash's presentation on Mayan priests and seer stones?

[Tom]

Unfortunately, Everybody Wang Chung, I missed it. The argument sounds far-fetched (“Interpreters were likely modeled after the divining stones used by Mesoamerican shamans”), but what do I know?

One additional note about Sherinian’s keynote and Q&A: FAIR initially posted the entire thing on YouTube, but then made the video private. No explanation has been given.

[MG 2.0]

The Case for Positive Contention

Abstract: Are Latter-day Saints commanded to avoid any kind of conflict with people who don’t share their values? Don’t the scriptures say that “Contention is of the devil”? In this talk, I address the various ways that “contention” is described in the scriptures and in general conference talks, including the ways that “contention” is spoken of positively. I use the hermeneutical tools of exegesis and contextual analysis to examine these talks and scriptures, and explain why their use of terms like “contend” and “contention” doesn’t mean that we should avoid any kind of disagreement at all.

Then, I explore the various ways we are counseled by leaders on how to positively “contend” without violating what LDS scriptures and leaders teach on contention. In short, this talk shows that Latter-day Saints don’t need to avoid any kind of disagreement and conflict. As long as members of the church engage in a kind of “positive contention”, we are able to share the gospel and defend truth without being afraid of violating our call to be peacemakers.

Looks like TTOC is obsolete.

No, it's not. And I totally agree with the quote you provided.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor Scratch]

Thanks very much for the update, Tom. Quite remarkable! I can't help but wonder why Sherinian was invited to a Mopologetic conference like this. His talk was praised over at "SeN," so will there be blowback over there as well? In any case, it is certainly interesting to see the way(s) that LDS doctrine continues to evolve. Perhaps the Family Proclamation will eventually be treated (officially) in much the same way as the location of the Book of Mormon? I mean, I'm sure you recall Grant Hardy's assertion at the FAIR Conference a few years back, where he stated that it's possible for someone to regard the Book of Mormon as *fiction* and still get into the CK! Can one view the Family Proclamation in the same light, I wonder?

[Kishkumen]

Those comments attacking Sherinian are pretty remarkable. I can see why it is that I don't fit in at an LDS ward. Looks like the Brethren got the Church they wanted when they wrote that Proclamation, which was, by the way, initially drafted by a BYU law professor for the express purpose of fighting gay marriage.