What Has The New Farms Produced?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I "get it" well enough to identify ill-founded rumor and gossip when I see it.

And some actions just cry out for a direct response.

They don't have the right to spread gossip that impacts people's reputations. Shame on you, if you have been taking part in such a thing and are disposed to continue it.

So speculating that the brethren were involved in the MI shakeup is bad. Speculating that the current men leading the MI are misusing endowments and have no testimony of the historicity of the BOM is okay. Got it.

[Scott Lloyd]

You have no right to judge me. This information is in the news regarding the church. I have every right to read up on it and form an opinion. When you stop discussing it, maybe others will too.

There have been no credible news reports that last summer's changes at the Maxwell Institute were ordered or approved by by the high leaders of the Church. That is pure, unfounded conjecture, and it has been explicitly denied by at least one (Daniel Peterson) who is in a position to know.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[William Schryver]

I couldn't be more pleased that this affair continues to command the interest of a great many people. As far as I am concerned, what has happened at the Maxwell Institute in the past couple years has done more to reveal the "true colors" of more people than any so-called "Mopologists' Inquisition" ever could have.

I've never suffered from the delusions and naivete that frequently accompany the conviction that most people are good. I accept that most people are good in most ways, but also just as likely to be conspiring devils when the attainment of wealth, power, or the honors of men are at stake. After all, I've been an observer of Utah politics and multi-level marketing schemes for over thirty years now. I've learned, beyond the power of any pretensions to brotherhood and personal holiness to overcome, that there are wicked men (and women) everywhere, and often in the places you believe you would be least likely to find them.

[Senator]

CFR

When will the slander cease?

I'll assume Will has me an ignore.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Senator

[volgadon]

I'll assume Will has me an ignore.

Looks like he has been banned anyway.

[Calm]

Looks like he has been banned anyway.

I believe that is a title he has put in himself.

[William Schryver]

Looks like he has been banned anyway.

Things are not always what they appear to be ...

[volgadon]

Things are not always what they appear to be ...

Great, which means that you can answer the CFR.

[William Schryver]

I believe that is a title he has put in himself.

And thus the bubble bursts ...

[Teancum]

So speculating that the brethren were involved in the MI shakeup is bad. Speculating that the current men leading the MI are misusing endowments and have no testimony of the historicity of the BOM is okay. Got it.

Well stated.

[mfbukowski]

Looks like he has been banned anyway.

Wow

Edit: duh, I fell for it

Edited February 13, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

Wow

Edit: duh, I fell for it

Guys! He's had that on his avatar for months -- perhaps more than a year.

[volgadon]

Guys! He's had that on his avatar for months -- perhaps more than a year.

That should tell you how little attention I pay his posts.

[Scott Lloyd]

That should tell you how little attention I pay his posts.

A pity. Will makes some good points and expresses himself very well.

[William Schryver]

Great, which means that you can answer the CFR.

Aside from the general orgy of exultation in the apostate ranks of the Bloggernacle at large (which, by both inference and deduction, suggests the ideological consonance to which I have hinted), I would specifically refer serious inquirers to the numerous relevant comments/posts authored by Loyd Ericson ("the narrator") since mid-June 2012. Ericson has apparently been privy to the thoughts of many of the principals of the Bradford Junta, and has, on several occasions, revealingly described the ideological schisms at the heart of the matter, in the process making relatively clear who stands on what side of the wide divide.

Even so, as a hard and fast general rule, one may reliably discern the ideological posture of anyone involved in this ongoing drama by the degree of approbation (or its converse) directed towards them by the denizens of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©.

Edited February 13, 2013 by William Schryver

[Daniel Peterson]

It just does not make sense to many that the church leaders would allow this to happen if it wasn't something they agreed with.

The concept of "allowing" something to happen is a pretty broad one.

But, yet again, I can tell you as an absolutely certain fact that the change at the Maxwell Institute was not ordered by the Brethren and that they did not know about it in advance.

Many factors enter into the question of whether they should or will intervene afterwards, and I have no data on any of that. But, speculations notwithstanding, the above statement is true.

[volgadon]

A pity. Will makes some good points and expresses himself very well.

To reach those good points requires far too much wading through hysteria, contempt, and witchsmelling for my taste.

Edited February 13, 2013 by volgadon

[Scott Lloyd]

To reach those good points requires far too much wading through hysteria, contempt, and witchsmelling for my taste.

There are contributors to the board whose opinions I don't much care for. But I don't feel I can afford to dismiss or ignore them, because they sometimes make valid points, they state them so well and their reasoning is solid.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

There are contributors to the board whose opinions I don't much care for. But I don't feel I can afford to dismiss or ignore them, because they sometimes make valid points, they state them so well and their reasoning is solid.

That is the thing, I don't feel that most of his posts are stated that well, or that the reasoning is so solid. However, that is purely my subjective opinion.

[Chaos]

This is the last warning to posters who are upping the rhetoric or discussing one another. You will be removed for continued use of inflammatory language and that includes calling your opponents apostates.

[William Schryver]

A pity. Will makes some good points and expresses himself very well.

Thank you, Scott.

I have long held to the following principles when it comes to friends and enemies in this world:

• "A man with no enemies is a man with no character." (Paul Newman)
  `
  
• "He will never have true friends who is afraid of making enemies." (William Hazlitt)
  `
  
• "Choose your enemies wisely, because they will define you." (Paul Hewson)
  

As for friends, I value them for their quality, not their quantity.

[Senator]

Aside from the general orgy of exultation in the apostate ranks of the Bloggernacle at large (which, by both inference and deduction, suggests the ideological consonance to which I have hinted), I would specifically refer serious inquirers to the numerous relevant comments/posts authored by Loyd Ericson ("the narrator") since mid-June 2012. Ericson has apparently been privy to the thoughts of many of the principals of the Bradford Junta, and has, on several occasions, revealingly described the ideological schisms at the heart of the matter, in the process making relatively clear who stands on what side of the wide divide.

Even so, as a hard and fast general rule, one may reliably discern the ideological posture of anyone involved in this ongoing drama by the degree of approbation (or its converse) directed towards them by the denizens of The Great and Spacious Trailer Park©.

Lame.

Please provide for us direct (not second hand) quotes from the individuals you are smearing, showing the idealogical consonance.

These are serious and offensive slurs that you are leveling against fellow brothers that are in good standing with the church.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Senator

[William Schryver]

These are serious and offensive slurs that you are leveling against fellow brothers that are in good standing with the church.

It is a serious and offensive slur to assert that I have leveled a serious and offensive slur.

Even so, I might add that it has long been apparent to the discerning that you are also in ideological consonance with those of whom I have spoken above, so your "serious and offensive slur" has therefore been directed to the appropriate file.

Now do us all a favor and stop derailing an otherwise compelling thread.

You are out.

[Senator]

It is a serious and offensive slur to assert that I have leveled a serious and offensive slur.

Nice dodge.

Even so, I might add that it has long been apparent to the discerning that you are also in ideological consonance with those of whom I have spoken above

Another dodge, another smear and another CFR!

Now do us all a favor and stop derailing an otherwise compelling thread.

......and your character assasination of certain folks at MI is not a spectacular derail from the OP??

Life is grand.

You are out.

[volgadon]

There was a thread here several months ago about some Indian names being evidence of the BoM. It was a silly argument. I tracked down a source showing that the names were given by Mormon missionaries and settlers, I went to the library and copied it out. As a google search revealed, someone on the other board approved.

I believe in the historicity of the BoM. I believe in the historicity of the restoration. I uphold the first presidency and the twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators. I believe in the godhead. Heck, I even believe in a global flood. Does a poster's approval there make us ideological bedfellows?