The Roof Falls In On Martha

[Nighthawke]

Here is a so-called "chronology" of Church history, entitled Great Moments in Church History.

There is nothing upbeat or pleasant about it.

And all of the items come from Michael Quinn's book.

1. Um, maybe I missed it but what is the point of posting this "so-called "chronology" of Church history" again?

2. I wonder where Mike Quinn got his info for his chronology?

3. Are you aware of any other chronologies that might be worth mentioning?

Just thinking out loud... Is there something groundbreaking in putting together a chronology? I mean it's not like you need to have gone to Chronology Authorship 101 school or anything. Anyone can do it.

[Nighthawke]

Absolutely. Rollo Tomasi is saying that President Packer never instructed LDS historians to bury embarrassing facts.

Thanks for the clarification.

Sorry, you still got it wrong. Elder Packer indeed was instructing Church historians and educators not to publish or teach embarrassing Church history. Hope this clarification of the clarification gets through.

I disagree. I do not believe President Packer "was instructing Church historians and educators not to publish or teach embarrassing Church history".

[gtaggart]

But, don't worry, I'll get it here as soon as I can. Rollo "the Apologist Slayer" Tomasi would never desert Sunnydale, er... I mean, Zion.

So Rollo, are you using the part in quotation marks ironically, as a term of art, or is it a quote from your diary? If the latter, could you please cite date and page number?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Read the talk itself (linked in prior post) and it will be self-evident.

But it's not self-evident.

[Rollo Tomasi]

But, don't worry, I'll get it here as soon as I can.  Rollo "the Apologist Slayer" Tomasi would never desert Sunnydale, er... I mean, Zion. 

So Rollo, are you using the part in quotation marks ironically, as a term of art, or is it a quote from your diary?

More like a title with a dash of humor thrown in.

[Anna]

I disagree. I do not believe President Packer "was instructing Church historians and educators not to publish or teach embarrassing Church history".

I tend to agree, technically. I'm not sure that Packer, technically speaking, had the authority to give any actual or outright "instruction" to historians or educators. If he had, it would have set off even more of a public firestorm over the academic freedom issues that BYU has had to face.

I think rather than "instructing", he was using his position to "strongly encourage" those historians and/or educators, who would fall under the "worthiness review process", to avoid using such truths that would bring embarrassment.

A difference without distinction? Maybe, maybe not. But technically, I agree with Nighthawke.

[charity]

Anna, it's Packer, not Packard.

I have read the FARMS reviews of the Beck book and don't find nitpicking at all. Nitpicking is one person saying that the day was cloudy and the second critizing because it was really overcast. Saying there was no General Authority on a panel when Beck claimed there was is not in that category at all. I am anxiously awaiting Rollo's response. I am getting my nitpicky meter all ready to go. I hope it can stand the strain.

[Dunamis]

Rollo, one of the ways in which we determine the flow of the board is by how many objections there are to a particular poster from a cross-section of posters. There is a critical mass of objections that makes any claim that the complaints are irrelevant, irrelevant.

You have changed the meaning of a talk by using a word such as "unhelpful" and then substituting "embarrassing" and using your substitution as if it was from the mouth of the author. This is inflammatory. Your flooding a thread with your *** for tat style of posting is inflammatory. Your relentlessly negative and confrontive posting is inflammatory. You have created pages of clever repartee rather than acknowledging what everyone is seeing. You have inserted a word into a speech that is not there.

Stop turning threads into off-topic brawls, Rollo. This is why we had you limited to ten posts a day at one point.

[Anna]

I am getting my nitpicky meter all ready to go. I hope it can stand the strain.

If typos are setting it off, we could probably use your meter as a refridgerated cooling fan!

[Rollo Tomasi]

I am anxiously awaiting Rollo's response. I am getting my nitpicky meter all ready to go. I hope it can stand the strain.

Charge up your nitpicky meter because there will be a lot of it in my response. Why? Because that is precisely what I will be responding to.

[Rollo Tomasi]

You have inserted a word into a speech that is not there.

I did not insert a word or words in Packer's text that were not there, and have never claimed to be quoting him in this regard. I made very clear where I was quoting him. I linked the entire text, lest anyone accuse me of misrepresenting him. My use of "bury embarrassing history" was my own phrase to describe what I read he was talking about. This is an appropriate use of quote marks, as I have pointed out above.

That said, I apologize if I have inflamed anyone or any topic. That was not my intention (but I do believe it was the intent of others on this thread to divert attention from the real issues). Just to be sure, I will conclude my participation on this thread.

[charity]

Rollo, is that your way of wiggling out of making your promised reply to the reviews?

[Scott Lloyd]

I am getting my nitpicky meter all ready to go. I hope it can stand the strain.

If typos are setting it off, we could probably use your meter as a refridgerated cooling fan!

Packard is not a typo (defined as a "mechanical mistake made in setting type or in typing"); it is a careless misspelling of a name.

If you must refer to a high Church officer by surname only, please have the courtesy to spell that name correctly.

[gtaggart]

Greg, the author [me], should have been more concerned about his audience [you, among others].

[gtaggart]

Read the talk itself (linked in prior post) and it will be self-evident.

But it's not self-evident.

Something an uber-TBM would say. I'm ok with that.

Something an uber-critic of the Church would say . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

You have inserted a word into a speech that is not there.

I did not insert a word or words in Packer's text that were not there, and have never claimed to be quoting him in this regard. I made very clear where I was quoting him. I linked the entire text, lest anyone accuse me of misrepresenting him. My use of "bury embarrassing history" was my own phrase to describe what I read he was talking about. This is an appropriate use of quote marks, as I have pointed out above.

That said, I apologize if I have inflamed anyone or any topic. That was not my intention (but I do believe it was the intent of others on this thread to divert attention from the real issues). Just to be sure, I will conclude my participation on this thread.

I assure you that any good editor would not tolerate such a use of quotation marks; the propensity to mislead is far too great.

No need to resign from the thread; just cease the deceptive punctuation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Read the talk itself (linked in prior post) and it will be self-evident.

But it's not self-evident.

Something an uber-TBM would say. I'm ok with that.

Something an uber-critic of the Church would say . . .

Rollo, if your reading of President Packer's meaning is so self-evident, why do you see a need to paraphrase him in a way that appears to be direct quotation of words he did not speak?

[gtaggart]

I was taking a look at Rollo's posts on the Martha Beck thread to find examples of where he actually quoted someone without giving a citation, so that we, his readers, would know that he was actually quoting. Remember, one of his defenses to the accusation that he used quotation marks inappropriately was that when he does quote someone, he gives a citation; therefore, when he uses quotation marks other times, we should understand that he's using a term or art or being ironic or some such. Well, here is evidence that he doesn't give citations after actual quotes, at least not all the time:

Posted: Nov 7 2005, 01:12 PM

Certainly, if done with the intent to manipulate what you know to be truth. A good example is where someone is counseled to withhold historical fact or truth that some may view as embarrassing because "not all truth is helpful."

And

Posted: Nov 7 2005, 01:19 PM

I was thinking more along the lines of counseling historians "not [to] spread disease germs."

In neither case, did he give a cite.

But in my little search, I was suprised to discover that the "quote" (I'm being ironic here) that I had used to rail against him--the "burying embarrassing" information "quote" (again, I'm being ironic)--was not his quote after all. Instead, he had written the following:

QUOTE (Rollo Tomasi @ Nov 7 2005, 01:47 PM)

I suspect any man who counsels historians to bury "unhelpful" (i.e., embarrassing) Church history. Boyd Packer was not telling historians it's ok to publish any history so long as they provide "context." He was instructing that they NOT publish any history that may harm tender testimonies (regardless of context).

And I challenged him on it, initially putting his words "bury embarrassing" in quotations. Unfortunately, over the next 12 pages of that thread, I mistakenly remembered those words as his "quotation" of Packer. I was wrong on that point. And I apologize. However, my larger point is still valid: Rollo needs to be more careful with his quotation marks. Many on this board have pointed that out as well. Nevertheless, his carelessness does not excuse mine. Sorry.

I have posted this as its own thread as well, given the fuss I made.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, is that your way of wiggling out of making your promised reply to the reviews?

No, I certainly intend to do so. Be patient.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I was wrong on that point. And I apologize. However, my larger point is still valid: Rollo needs to be more careful with his quotation marks. Many on this board have pointed that out as well. Nevertheless, his carelessness does not excuse mine. Sorry.

The first two quotes you cite were indeed given without attribution for a specific reason (at the time). I was trying to answer the posed questions by using a specific word from Elder Packer but without derailing the thread into a discussion of Packer's controversial talk (which eventually occurred anyway). I assure you there was no intent to deceive.

Nevertheless, I will state here that I will try to do better in the future in making clear whether my quote marks signify my use of the words of another speaker/writer or simply to indicate my personal form of expression.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, if your reading of President Packer's meaning is so self-evident, why do you see a need to paraphrase him in a way that appears to be direct quotation of words he did not speak?

In a prior post in this thread, I gave a very long list of actual quoted phrases from his talk that formed the bases for my consolidating them all into my descriptive phrase "burying embarrassing history," which I believe is an apt description of what he was saying.

[Pahoran]

I was taking a look at Rollo's posts on the Martha Beck thread to find examples of where he actually quoted someone without giving a citation, so that we, his readers, would know that he was actually quoting.  Remember, one of his defenses to the accusation that he used quotation marks inappropriately was that when he does quote someone, he gives a citation; therefore, when he uses quotation marks other times, we should understand that he's using a term or art or being ironic or some such.  Well, here is evidence that he doesn't give citations after actual quotes, at least not all the time:

Posted: Nov 7 2005, 01:12 PM

Certainly, if done with the intent to manipulate what you know to be truth. A good example is where someone is counseled to withhold historical fact or truth that some may view as embarrassing because "not all truth is helpful."

And

Posted: Nov 7 2005, 01:19 PM

I was thinking more along the lines of counseling historians "not [to] spread disease germs."

In neither case, did he give a cite.

But in my little search, I was suprised to discover that the "quote" (I'm being ironic here) that I had used to rail against him--the "burying embarrassing" information "quote" (again, I'm being ironic)--was not his quote after all. Instead, he had written the following:

QUOTE (Rollo Tomasi @ Nov 7 2005, 01:47 PM)

I suspect any man who counsels historians to bury "unhelpful" (i.e., embarrassing) Church history. Boyd Packer was not telling historians it's ok to publish any history so long as they provide "context." He was instructing that they NOT publish any history that may harm tender testimonies (regardless of context).

And I challenged him on it, initially putting his words "bury embarrassing" in quotations. Unfortunately, over the next 12 pages of that thread, I mistakenly remembered those words as his "quotation" of Packer. I was wrong on that point. And I apologize. However, my larger point is still valid: Rollo needs to be more careful with his quotation marks. Many on this board have pointed that out as well. Nevertheless, his carelessness does not excuse mine. Sorry.

I have posted this as its own thread as well, given the fuss I made.

Greg,

your mistake is noted, but it's no biggie. Given that Rollo does that sort of thing all the time, and given that he defended himself in terms that rather explicitly admitted having done it, this is at least an admission that he would do it.

Rollo subsequently wrote:

Nevertheless, I will state here that I will try to do better in the future in making clear whether my quote marks signify my use of the words of another speaker/writer or simply to indicate my personal form of expression.

I look forward to seeing Rollo do better.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rollo Tomasi]

I look forward to seeing Rollo do better.

I've hoped the same thing from you for a long time, only to be disappointed.

[Pahoran]

Rollo, if your reading of President Packer's meaning is so self-evident, why do you see a need to paraphrase him in a way that appears to be direct quotation of words he did not speak?

In a prior post in this thread, I gave a very long list of actual quoted phrases from his talk that formed the bases for my consolidating them all into my descriptive phrase "burying embarrassing history," which I believe is an apt description of what he was saying.

You also said that it was up to the reader to interpret his words as they see fit; and as soon as those who actually bothered to read his words reported that he did not say what you tried to make him say, you changed your tune rather quickly.

You previously described yourself as:

Rollo "the Apologist Slayer" Tomasi

Not hardly. All you succeed in doing is to drag on the hands that hang down and weaken the feeble knees.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Nevertheless, I will state here that I will try to do better in the future in making clear whether my quote marks signify my use of the words of another speaker/writer or simply to indicate my personal form of expression.

You could hardly do better than to discontinue the use of quotation marks except for instances when you really are directly quoting somebody or something. Use of them for any other purpose is confusing and potentially deceptive, intended or not.