Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8,692 Excellent

About juliann

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,557 profile views
  1. Really? Because FM only has contact with people through direct personal email. And those who write in are treated very well, on a very few occasions where someone has said something too harsh, others jump in. Are you saying their website contact treats people badly? Please provide an example of that.
  2. It's not even a real issue. The Trib uses an unnamed woman without ever verifying her story by interviewing witnesses, instead Peggy used a blog as her only source. But some of those witnesses did have some things to say in mommy FB groups and this was not about what we think of as nursing. I bought into it initially and criticized the bishop, but there is no reason to believe what this woman reported about him than what she said about what she was doing. I will support most feminist issues but IMO, the woman should have been removed from the building.
  3. I think what is happening to news is going to have repercussions for society but I really don't get the paywall concept. It has to be obvious now that people aren't going to pay for news anymore. Nor do people rely on one source anymore so it is unrealistic to think they will pay each news source. So I'm trying to figure out why, if they are supported by advertising, they would block people from the advertising. How many actually shell out the money when they hit the wall rather than going to another free source? I stop going to the newspaper at all.
  4. juliann

    Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

    When is the last time you saw ward members and a bishop running to the press? You want to believe the worst. You choose to believe a woman with a crazy story making inconsistent unsubstianted accusations who won't give her name. Nothing iffy about that. Enjoy.
  5. juliann

    Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

    Look how you are now exaggerating to make the witnesses look silly. Do you normally back accusers without any curiosity about who is being accused? Do you find a changing story that credible that witnesses are to be scorned? Or do you actually think no one see what was happening in a church foyer?
  6. juliann

    Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

    I’m not going to repeat myself. It has all been explained from ward members who did speak up online. Why do you think she is taking pains to make denials....about what no one has complained about? And of course what she was doing is absurd! Do you actually think that many people would be upset by mere nursing? Where would these ward members speak up other than on FB, HJ? Please link to even one article, blog, or reporter who has made any effort whatsoever to investigate this?
  7. juliann

    Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

    Given that her story has been disputed on about every level, I don't know why this one should be given credibility, either.
  8. juliann

    Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

    Now find a picture with both breasts exposed and her walking over to pick up her child as deacons bring out the tray. It probably wouldn't be so funny.
  9. juliann

    Woman Denied Temple Recommend for ...

    I stopped tracking this, it was so stupidly one sided. First, if she could reach a "compromise" then why didn't she initially. I'm thinking the under/over would likely make it too difficult to completely expose herself, the complaint was that she was baring both breasts while taking the sacrament in the lobby (and not remaining seated.) Not once did I hear a story about anything hanging out after she nursed. It was what she was doing before, where she was doing it and when she was doing it.That a compromise doesn't make obvious sense should only confirm that she isn't telling the truth about what happened. And notice the compromise does not prevent exposure of the nursing breast. This never was about that and it likely was never a problem. What she was really doing was the problem. When I have heard her denials, they are cagey....like denying something she isn't being accused of. Once she called it "rumors." Uh, no. It was real people with real stories. It is rather revealing that she feels a need to continue to make denials. Like, you said...the faux reporting on this is astonishing.
  10. Everyone ought to come and watch Scott looking all chill and comfortable.
  11. It's a misunderstanding. In the time I was there, there was never an effort to coordinate speakers. We just went for what was current, who was available, who was asking, etc. This year was the first year we even had a correlated day....on Wed. I think that was an effective approach. For the life of me, I do not understand why people are so hell bent to turn FM into a monolithic corporate beast with a single heart, mind, and voice in another room apart from all of the disparate people within it. I suspect it is only because it makes it much more easy to pick out one speaker and demonize him/her as FM's spawn. FM's speakers are not required to even turn in talks prior to giving them. And yes, there have been a few speakers over the years that I would have glady run off the stage. Not once in my 20 some years did I ever, ever, ever think that a once a year speaker was inside my brain, speaking for me or any other board member. What are you expecting? That Hardy/Mason/Grant speak every year? If they don't, there just aren't a lot of Hardy/Mason/Grant clones. So why in the world would you expect that to happen every year? Why should it have to? Every word they said is on the FM website. I am really so tired of this.
  12. juliann

    Horses in the Book of Mormon

    I didn't hear the talk. I really don't care if there were horses at any particular time period. However, over time I am more suspicious of hard line edicts because so many are falling by the wayside. The land bridge stuff about the only way migration occured always struck me as rigid and frankly, odd and sure enough, it has been re-opened to examination with more alternatives explored. So much of this kind of thing seems to be determined by forcing researchers to toe the established line. When this topic (or anything else that is essentially closed when legitimate researchers risk being labeled as wack jobs for violating concensus) becomes open to examination, I'll be more trusting.
  13. That term is loaded because it is a cynical attempt to avoid labeling them as [LDS] scholars. That is how they would label themselves and how the academic world would label them. Dehlin has a lot to lose by allowing that because he tends more towards anti-intellectualism than the world of these scholars. So it is not about who made it up, it is about why. And I think it would be wise to give them the appropriate label if there is any expectation of communicating with anyone outside of these contentious circles.
  14. Did you listen to the Women's conference on Wed? There was an entire day that was not exactly by the book conservative. Conferences are a mixed bag. Talks are not prescreened. Maybe if you looked at it over than time rather than expecting everything to be included in each conference it would give a better perspective.
  15. And that list is why I can’t take him seriously. Many find week apologetic responses? He is using blogs and the most poorly sourced website on polygamy for references while thinking he has uncovered unanswerable scandals. Meanwhile, the church is putting out original sources by the boatload. I think the most meaningful investigation would be how this new openness is forcing critics into unetenable positions. Thus, Dehlin has to start demonizing what he pejoratively calls neo-apologists. One doesn’t have to think the church is moving fast enough or coming down hard enough on bad information to notice how agitators are being pushed into self defeating acts.