Search Yourself!

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Out of general curiosity, I was wondering if, since I generally engage in very civil discourse with all sides, I had ever given reason to be cited in other boards and mocked. Sop I did a Google search, added in the term LDS, and went at it. Although not fullproof (lots of things may not be indexed), I did find two examples, and one utterly surpised me. Apparently I was referenced on Mormonwiki... but the link is bad!

1) The actual reason I am making this thread: http://www.mormonwiki.org/Relationship_with_Jesus . Yes, I made it on to Mormon Wiki!!! I have to say, after years of toiling, it's gratifying to know I said something someone cared about, even if they wanted to put a negative spin on it.:-) Sure, it's jsut a general link for a view, not actually a footnote, but I will take it. Sadly, I went to read whatever it was I was had posted, and the link was bad (it goes to the defunct Mormonapologetics.org version of the board). It was titled "How Do You Interact With Christ?". I vaguely recall this thread. I can't find it in teh archives though. Anyone know if it's backed up somewhere. I would love to be able to reread it and help them update their links.;-) As a side note, the MormonWiki page on this is just terrible on the logic and doctrinal side. And they say our wiki is bad. Whew!

2) Uncle Dale, who some of you from many many years ago on many old iterations of this board may remember, was big on the Spaliding Theory for the Book of Mormon. He was an excellent man in often poor health. I don;t know if he is still around. He was inactive RLDS, one of the more polite detractors, and maintained a prodgious database of data scanned in from records all over the place. Apparently back in 2007, in response to a question at Mormondiscussions someone posed about if anyone ahd the same amount of knowledge on the Spalding Theory as he did, he said:

If Dr. Lester E. Bush, Jr. is still alive, he would be the most expert LDS on the topic. He was the one who responded to my 1982 Mormon History Association paper on the topic. From interacting with him then, I can say that he knew a great deal about the subject -- but was very guarded in talking about it candidly.

Next in line would be Richard L. Anderson. I have seen evidence of his research in out of the way places, from California to Washington, D. C. I recall once looking over an old ledger book in Cherry Valley, NY,

(where Spalding once lived), and on a page with an entry for Spalding's brother Josiah, was inserted a local person's business card from about 1960, and on the back was Anderson's name and phone number in Utah.

Anderson is not interested in talking about this subject, despite his years of quiet research. Nor is BYU prof Kent P. Jackson (who edited and oversaw the research on the last LDS Church publication in the topic).

The LDS second-string scholars would include Matthew B. Brown, Matt Roper and perhaps Matthew J. Tandy. Scott H. Faulring might also fit in there somewhere -- though I doubt he has much useful knowledge.

Marvin S. Hill once knew a good deal, but I'm pretty sure he has not kept up his earlier interest.

On the amateur level there are Wade England, Jeff Lindsay, Russell Anderson, Robert & Rosemary Brown, and perhaps Richard Winwood.

None of these Mormons seems ready, willing and able to discuss the many facets of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation in a reasonable, objective sort of way. Even Bush (who, as I said knows much) was more interested in bearing his LDS testimony and talking about why NOT to study the topic, than he was in sifting through the old evidence in dialogue with a non-Mormon.

I have hopes for Matthew J. Tandy --- time will tell.

Let me just say that, again, I always liked Uncle Dale (that was his moniker here), even if we didn't agree on what the evidence pointed to. We almost met on BYU once while he was in town, but work prevented me sadl from doing so. However, I am pleased that I made it into his view of a second-string scholar, and that he ahd high hopes for me.;-) In all lack of humility, I probably do know more about the Spalding theory than all but a small handful of people in or out of the Church. Since 2007, I have read and accumulated multiples of more knowledge on it. Although the details are fuzzier nowadays as it's been a year or two since I looked much at it (you can only research it so much before you are treading the same ground). Uncle Dale provided many useful resources, not just for the Spalding theory, but for early Mormon documents in general that are fascinating to any historian. I personally sitll view the Spalding Theory as thoroughly implausible, but resarching everything possibly surrounding it greatly expanded my knowledge of early LDS historical sources, both in and out of the church.

So... excluding Daniel Peterson, who could create an Encycopledia length tome on how others have used him, what about all of you other "second stringers"? Google your screen name with "lds" added in (or MormonDiscussions or whatever) and post the more itneresting finds!

[The Nehor]

Nothing much. My mimicking satire of DCP's stalker and the mega-thread that resulted from it came up. Happy days.

[Darren10]

I had ever given reason to be cited in other boards and mocked.

Actually, it's because nobody, and I mean nobody messes with the Tandyman.

Google your screen name with "lds" added in (or MormonDiscussions or whatever) and post the more itneresting finds!

I think I'm too much a poster youngling to get many results (in LDS discussions) but i've been ,mocked already. That's cuz I'm cool like that.

[Libs]

Apparently, no one has, yet, mistaken me for a Book of Mormon scholar.

[TAO]

Haven't been noticed anywhere other than here other than one instance on MD (Scratch was referencing me on a science thread posted here) and one on NOM (which I wasn't all too surprised about, they don't like me too much there =p).

So it looks like I haven't gotten enough people angry to warrent a post on me and mormonism on non-normal websites. I guess you could say that's success at it's fullest! =D

Edited June 1, 2012 by TAO

[Matthew J. Tandy]

one on NOM (which I wasn't all too surprised about, they don't like me too much there =p).

What's NOM?

[DBMormon]

Mormondiscussions page

I am the hott topic here

from the madb reelmormon posts topic;

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/576 ... revisions/

"Study the Gospel Principles manual and was reading under chapter 14

{C}http://www.lds.org/m...zation?lang=eng{C}

saw where when talking about apostles, it says "special witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ". That sounded kinda odd and funny and I didn't remember that from when I joined and read this book inside and out so I consulted my older version and saw original book wording left out "name of"

That seems odd......... for the sale of conversation, why do you think this change. I can't figure out how that is a better way to phrase it...

Your thoughts "

There are some engaging thoughts to be found on that thread, but to be clear, those have to be searched out from under the increasing pile of "fluffy" cotton candy responses.

I find the rewording refreshing!

[blueadept]

What's NOM?

NOM = New Order Mormon - are those who no longer believe some (or much) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons.

Edited June 1, 2012 by blueadept

[jwhitlock]

That is kind of an interesting exercise. Some pretty nasty and hate-filled people out there.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

That is kind of an interesting exercise. Some pretty nasty and hate-filled people out there.

Heh, maybe for you. I apaprently fly under the radar.

[TAO]

What's NOM?

Yeah, blueadept nailed it. Of course, I was talking about the discussion board, and not all people who are NOMs. I participated on that board for a short while, but they didn't like me too much.

Their board is... well... let's say they are very protective of it... they aren't really ready for apologist opinions, and such. I wouldn't recommend it, in any case. Shade's board would be better if you are looking for a detailed discussion (though it has it's own problems too) (and of course, there is always here too).

In any case, it looks like most of the positive things have been stuck around here, which I look at as a good thing. It means most don't look at me negatively, and enjoy my quirks (for example, I'm guessing the post above got a + for happy chair). So I'm pretty pleased with the overall.

I was a bit surprised though about the Shade's board post though... it actually isn't referencing me negatively, it's rather neutral. Which is good too, I guess.

Speaking of quirks... here's another picture to enjoy!

Best of Wishes,

-TAO

[Buzzard]

Well, I have not used my real name on the internet for several years, both because I am not a public figure, and also because sometimes you type something that you immediately wish you could have back, and the internet allows you no such luxury. But googling my real name with "Mormon" and "LDS" as well both brings up some folks with my last name as their middle name, and just to prove my point, old posts from the usenet circa 1999-2002, when I did type my real name from time to time. It's true, the internet never forgets. Ah, alt.religion.mormon, what fun!

[Aliwe]

Ah, alt.religion.mormon, what fun!

It's still busy, to a degree, but the activity is mostly cross-posts from alt.atheism and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. No one is posting from a.r.m anymore, not even Stormin' Mormon.