In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[mfbukowski]

I provided the link to Scott's dichotomy not once, but twice. Twice.

Perhaps if you had done it right the first time, you would not have had to do it again. I still have no idea where the quote came from.

[Calm]

And I'm not yet saying this model is valid; I'm only thinking out loud here. It might be altogether unworkable, just as Internet vs. Chapel is.

Your thoughts?

I bolded the parts I found particularly offensive, hence, my "poking" at him by using the terms he helpfully provided.

Something new! Multiquote works for even multiple threads (see above where I clicked on your link, "multiquote" Scott's OP and then MQed your post as well. cool

Anyway to substance:

I think the final statement is important in judging Scott's comments:

And I'm not yet saying this model is valid; I'm only thinking out loud here. It might be altogether unworkable, just as Internet vs. Chapel is.

I would like his clarifications on whether or not he thinks this dichotomy is valid now or not and a bit more clarification on who he sees as "folk mormon" and if he defines them in the same way you have presented them in this thread.

PS: I think it's unworkable myself for a variety of reasons, can't remember if I listed them in that thread or not though....another half an hour past, only 15 more hours to go!

[mfbukowski]

How about just asking her nicely to use the "reply" function on the post she is responding to and not at the end of a thread and just keep the full name, date, timestamp, and post info intact in the future? (Not sure if you asked her or only pointed out the lack of it before).

Not only did I ask her, I showed her how to do it. At least I thought I did. All I do is hit "reply" and just leave all the little numbers at the top of the post and write my reply below the word "quote" with all the brackets etc.

Clearly it doesn't take a computer genius because I am about the stupidest here I think on computer stuff.

[Malc]

Not at all.

If you will notice, in the LDS church, doctrine is made by the prophet, in conference, sustained by the priesthood quorums, as was the change in the priesthood for worthy black men.

It is not made by secretaries in form letters or faxes in response to a private communication to a bishop or a scholar.

I may not be entitled to just jump into the middle of this discussion, having contributed nothing to it so far. but I would like to respond to this point.

I don't believe that anyone, including Bro/Elder Watson, would consider that his letter "made" doctrine. His intent, as I read the letter, was to affirm doctrine that had been "made" by the brethren.

The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

Perhaps if you had done it right the first time, you would not have had to do it again. I still have no idea where the quote came from.

Now you should, though my version is highly truncated (is "truncated" the right word to use when you are loping off the front end and not that back or top? did I even spell it right?).

[beastie]

Not only did I ask her, I showed her how to do it. At least I thought I did. All I do is hit "reply" and just leave all the little numbers at the top of the post and write my reply below the word "quote" with all the brackets etc.

Clearly it doesn't take a computer genius because I am about the stupidest here I think on computer stuff.

If you showed me how to do it, it was not in a clear manner that conveyed what you thought it conveyed. I had no idea what you were fussing about, other than that I didn't always quote the person I was responding to. So I tried to quote every person by copying and pasting and typing the quote functions around what they said, which is how I do it on other boards.

It still bemuses me that you used this to accuse me of dishonesty. Really.

[mfbukowski]

The multiquote button is next to the reply button on each individual post. Click all you want to include in a response and then click on "add reply" at the bottom of the thread (before the quick post box). This adds all the clicked on posts to your response as I have done in this post taking every other post on this page till this one. You do need to be careful to not go over the limit, but that can be avoided by first constructing your response and then if you think it goes over (20 quotes? or is it less now), you can cut and paste half of it into another post with all the backstep (or whatever the little arrows by the posts mean) still intact.

You can also use cut and paste to rearrange them if they are not in the order you want pretty easily.

Hey, thanks for this. I have been trying to get that to work for a year or so now. I don't know why there is no "help" function, or am I just to dumb to find it?

[beastie]

Perhaps if you had done it right the first time, you would not have had to do it again. I still have no idea where the quote came from.

I did not realize you could multiquote across threads until Cal pointed it out.

But really, how can you claim you have no idea where the quote came from when I provided the link and said you'd have to go to that thread and read the OP?????

This is ridiculous, frankly.

[Calm]

Not only did I ask her, I showed her how to do it. At least I thought I did. All I do is hit "reply" and just leave all the little numbers at the top of the post and write my reply below the word "quote" with all the brackets etc.

Clearly it doesn't take a computer genius because I am about the stupidest here I think on computer stuff.

Persistence can be a virtue as well as highly annoying.

PS: I'm referring to myself as annoying, not you. Overly cautious right now about being misunderstood....which is probably annoying as well.

[Calm]

Hey, thanks for this. I have been trying to get that to work for a year or so now. I don't know why there is no "help" function, or am I just to dumb to find it?

I just wait for a convenient thread to ask if I can't figure it out myself, but if it's urgent, I just use the "contact us" or whatever that button is called.

[Ceeboo]

May I suggest a group hug ??????

Peace,

Ceeboo

[mfbukowski]

Wow, I actually get it. Thanks for the tip, I'll do my best to remember from now on. I assure MF that the manner of my posting was due solely to my incompetence and not to a desire to confuse or obfuscate.

Yay! This thread DID have a purpose!! Communication established! Two humans agreeing on something! Unbelievable!

I honestly had my doubts.....

[beastie]

Something new! Multiquote works for even multiple threads (see above where I clicked on your link, "multiquote" Scott's OP and then MQed your post as well. cool

Anyway to substance:

I think the final statement is important in judging Scott's comments: I would like his clarifications on whether or not he thinks this dichotomy is valid now or not and a bit more clarification on who he sees as "folk mormon" and if he defines them in the same way you have presented them in this thread.

PS: I think it's unworkable myself for a variety of reasons, can't remember if I listed them in that thread or not though....another half an hour past, only 15 more hours to go!

I know Scott was asking for feedback, but the pejorative description of "folk mormons" still originated in his heads, from his thoughts. He can't pan that off on anyone else. Maybe he was "playing around" with Shade's dichotomy, but he was clearly serious in this thoughts. While his thoughts on the matter may have evolved since that thread, I think it's undeniable that, on that thread, he thought it was fair to say "folk mormons" are lazy, ignorant, and intransigent. It still blows my mind. I also think if any critic had made a similar statement about Mormons - folk or non - they would have been blasted to kingdom come, and likely suspended or banned.

[beastie]

May I suggest a group hug ??????

Peace,

Ceeboo

Oh, cal and I have known each other for a long time, and I've always respected her. I hope she didn't interpret my comments in an unduly negative manner. I'm always willing to hug cal. We've both been around lots of blocks and know things get testy sometimes.

Now, MF, on the other hand, who accused me of dishonesty for not citing posts...not sure I'm ready to hug him. Particularly since he also made his wife do all the Christmas preparations.

[Calm]

I may not be entitled to just jump into the middle of this discussion, having contributed nothing to it so far.

Never stopped me.

I don't believe that anyone, including Bro/Elder Watson, would consider that his letter "made" doctrine. His intent, as I read the letter, was to affirm doctrine that had been "made" by the brethren.

In both the 1990 letter and the 1993 fax for sure and imo (meaning I think it exists), the pre-85 letter to Dr. Hamblin. Nor would the EoM citation intend to "make" doctrine.

That these affirmations are not always consistent may be due to variation of understanding and possibly interpretation of the question being asked (since as far as I know we don't have the question for either Dr. Hamblin's letter or the fax).

[beastie]

It took me awhile to figure it out. Good that someone else can benefit (and look we came up with another topic to distract me....you should have taken longer to "get it" though....perhaps I am too good at explanations, at least as far as pushing buttons are concerned.)

Well, I still don't get the "copy and paste and move around" bit. That part sounds intimidating, so I ignored it.

[Calm]

I hope she didn't interpret my comments in an unduly negative manner.

That would be assigning emotional intent.

I'm always willing to hug cal.

Might be dangerous right now though.

Particularly since he also made his wife do all the Christmas preparations.

Missed or forget his comment on this, but that just might be a matter of good taste, my husband does the same thing for the decorating. After years of practice on smaller meals, he's willing to attempt Christmas dinners when I'm not in the mood though.

[Ceeboo]

Oh, cal and I have known each other for a long time, and I've always respected her. I hope she didn't interpret my comments in an unduly negative manner. I'm always willing to hug cal. We've both been around lots of blocks and know things get testy sometimes.

Now, MF, on the other hand, who accused me of dishonesty for not citing posts...not sure I'm ready to hug him. Particularly since he also made his wife do all the Christmas preparations.

I say we HUG EM ALL ( Even MF !!!!! )

As a matter of fact, we should put MF smack in the middle of the ginormous group hug.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[beastie]

Never stopped me.In both the 1990 letter and the 1993 fax for sure and imo (meaning I think it exists), the pre-85 letter to Dr. Hamblin. Nor would the EoM citation intend to "make" doctrine.

That these affirmations are not always consistent may be due to variation of understanding and possibly interpretation of the question being asked (since as far as I know we don't have the question for either Dr. Hamblin's letter or the fax).

The whole issue of what is or is not LDS doctrine can be a bit ambiguous, so I prefer to think in terms of teachings, rather than doctrine. Some teachings have more authority than others, even if they don't become formal doctrine.

In terms of Dr. Hamblin's 1985 letter or the UR text that preceded it, I've been looking for pre EoM references to either with no success. I checked the sources Palmer gave for his EoM article, and well as Sorenson's Ancient American Setting, and none of these sources refer to a sort of speculated UR text from the FP. I would think that if a UR text existed, these people would have referenced it because it would have enhanced their position.

[Calm]

I think it's undeniable that, on that thread, he thought it was fair to say "folk mormons" are lazy, ignorant, and intransigent. It still blows my mind. I also think if any critic had made a similar statement about Mormons - folk or non - they would have been blasted to kingdom come, and likely suspended or banned.

That would depend on how they defined "folk mormons". If they used it as a label for exbelievers still on the books as members who left over because they were locked into fundamentalistic/black and white definitions, they might be safe.

[Calm]

In terms of Dr. Hamblin's 1985 letter or the UR text that preceded it, I've been looking for pre EoM references to either with no success. I checked the sources Palmer gave for his EoM article, and well as Sorenson's Ancient American Setting, and none of these sources refer to a sort of speculated UR text from the FP.

What do they refer to?

[Calm]

As a matter of fact, we should put MF smack in the middle of the ginormous group hug.

I'm game, but think it might be wise to wait until Tuesday for a certain reason I won't refer to out of delicacy....

[Malc]

Never stopped me.In both the 1990 letter and the 1993 fax for sure and imo (meaning I think it exists), the pre-85 letter to Dr. Hamblin. Nor would the EoM citation intend to "make" doctrine.

That these affirmations are not always consistent may be due to variation of understanding and possibly interpretation of the question being asked (since as far as I know we don't have the question for either Dr. Hamblin's letter or the fax).

I made the comment because it seemed to me that mfbukowski was implying that someone (not sure who) stated that the Watson letter was making doctrine.

Not at all.

If you will notice, in the LDS church, doctrine is made by the prophet, in conference, sustained by the priesthood quorums, as was the change in the priesthood for worthy black men.

It is not made by secretaries in form letters or faxes in response to a private communication to a bishop or a scholar.

[Calm]

I made the comment because it seemed to me that mfbukowski was implying that someone (not sure who) stated that the Watson letter was making doctrine.

I think he meant beastie in that she stated something along the lines IIRC that the Ogden fax was a "correction". He can correct me if I am wrong (and add comment if I am not).

I agree with him if this is what he is saying. As I stated above (I think), assuming the phone conversation was the trigger for a "correction" seems to me to be a significant leap requiring the complete dismissal of Dr. Hamblin's claim of an 85 letter (and even if one does not accept it as likely, it seems to me to be problematic to accept its nonexistence as a given fact as would be required for seeing the fax as a correction as far as I can see) as well as a neglect of the EoM citation.

[mfbukowski]

Anyway to substance:

I think the final statement is important in judging Scott's comments: I would like his clarifications on whether or not he thinks this dichotomy is valid now or not and a bit more clarification on who he sees as "folk mormon" and if he defines them in the same way you have presented them in this thread.

OK, I am catching up. I suppose I should read the whole thing before responding, but this is moving so fast, it seems you are always at least 2 pages ahead of my anyway. You could have already resolved everything and signed a peace treaty by the time I get to where you are. But I will keep on sniping in the foxholes and caves until I see it for myself.

Anyway, now I know the quote, thank you all, but I think that Scott's choice of words might not have been the best in that one line taken out of context, but I think his intent was to in fact provide a more descriptive dichotomy than the internet-chapel ridiculousness which has been perpetuated.

Maybe he could have chosen less inflammatory words, but all he is doing is exploring another way of defining the difference.

But this is a digression on top of a digression. So now are we discussing Scott's thead?

Anyway, I appreciate the reference to the quote beastie, thank you.