Fair Conference?

[mfbukowski]

 

I just got through watching Sharon's presentation on "This is a Woman's Church." Wow. Amazing! If women seek power and influence in the Church, Sharon exemplifies it in her words and deeds. 

 

[i just now noticed that others have posted links to Sharon's presentation on this thread (I heard about it through Interpreter). Perhaps I should remove my comment, but I suppose some things bear repeating and underscoring. Sharon's presentation falls into that category. Definitely a must see, particularly in this gender-charged world environment] 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To me, this talk will stand as seminal statement of the direction the church should and will take in the future.

 

That is a very strong statement- I know- and I personally affirmed similar positions myself- but for Sr. Eubanks to articulate it in that time and place I think is very significant.

 

Her board of directors consists of the entire Presiding Bishopric and the Relief Society general presidency.  She is not some blogger member of the Mormon intelligentsia shooting off her mouth.  She is also a former member of the Relief Society General Presidency.

 

Who is better suited to float a "trial balloon" for a church position?

 

She is not an official spokesperson obviously and was only speaking her personal opinion, but the fact that she has that opinion in her position, associating with those with whom she associates speaks volumes.

 

She has defined the idea of the "Divine Pair" and in my opinion, articulates some of the questions the brethren will take to the Lord for further light and knowledge.  It is an absolutely brilliant talk we should all study carefully in my opinion.

Edited August 11, 2014 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

To me, this talk will stand as seminal statement of the direction the church should and will take in the future.

 

That is a very strong statement- I know- and I personally affirmed similar positions myself- but for Sr. Eubanks to articulate it in that time and place I think is very significant.

 

Her board of directors consists of the entire Presiding Bishopric and the Relief Society general presidency.  She is not some blogger member of the Mormon intelligentsia shooting off her mouth.  She is also a former member of the Relief Society General Presidency.

 

Who is better suited to float a "trial balloon" for a church position?

 

She is not an official spokesperson obviously and was only speaking her personal opinion, but the fact that she has that opinion in her position, associating with those with whom she associates speaks volumes.

 

She has defined the idea of the "Divine Pair" and in my opinion, articulates some of the questions the brethren will take to the Lord for further light and knowledge.  It is an absolutely brilliant talk we should all study carefully in my opinion.

 

I agree. It makes perfect sense that the Church will head, or rather continue to head in the intimated direction because it isn't about defying traditional male/female roles or altering fundamental "doctrines" of the Church, but rather in learning to better understand and articulate what we already have respectively as men and women in the gospel, and this within the context of proper priorities  

 

As I see it, those women who truly get what is possible for them as a women in the Church, there would be no room for envy of men, and they would have not desire for what is possible for men in the Church, but would cherish and strive diligently for their own, and vice-verse. I very much appreciate Sharon giving us a glimpse of what that looks like.

 

The standing ovation was well deserved.

 

I would love to see her participate on the new board for LDS women, though I suspect that her time is occupied and better spent with managing charitable efforts for the Church throughout the world..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 11, 2014 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Boy, that Joseph Smith sure was a lucky fella, guessin' all that "money stuff" right!

You missed that one- you could have said "He was right on the money!" 

 

If there is a pun to be found, I will dig for it.

 

DCP's talk also brings up a number of those "lucky breaks" that Joseph also just happened to dream up by accident!

[Teancum]

Well, you probably would have been driven to apoplexy by what he said in his address at the FairMormon Conference. Something about how no plant or blade of grass can grow in his yard because of the soil having been rendered sterile by the sheer evil that emanates from him -- or something like that.

 

It was vintage DCP, characteristically hilarious.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here is more vintage DCP, the blog post he wrote just before his turn came to speak at the conference.

 

 

 

You all my love DCPs style.  But it often thwarts what he is trying to accomplish and paints him out to be mean spirited, which I do not believe is deserved.  I understand his style and to some extent why he does it.  Personally it does not drive me to apoplexy and by your thoughts that it would shows you really don't understand me at all.

 

Really I don't care.  All you self proclaimed defenders can carry on and pat yourselves on the back with they way you approach the gospel and its defense.   You think you are effective?  You really are not.  Yuck it up all you want.  All I was offering was some actual friendly advice.  Ignore it if you wish. As I just said, I really don't care.  It is all becoming more and more boring and really insignificant to me in the over all scheme of things. really.

 

Best regards

[Teancum]

Complaints that ex-Mormons have about the Church and its members are all over the Internet. I can access them anytime, and don't need to have them shoved down my throat from the stage of the FairMormon Conference.

 

On the other hand, having a close friend or loved one leave the Church is a challenging adversity I might confront at some point, and it was useful to me to get some understanding of how other faithful members have dealt with it.

  Wonderful

 

I am happy for you.

[wenglund]

You all my love DCPs style.  But it often thwarts what he is trying to accomplish and paints him out to be mean spirited, which I do not believe is deserved.  I understand his style and to some extent why he does it.  Personally it does not drive me to apoplexy and by your thoughts that it would shows you really don't understand me at all.

 

Really I don't care.  All you self proclaimed defenders can carry on and pat yourselves on the back with they way you approach the gospel and its defense.   You think you are effective?  You really are not.  Yuck it up all you want.  All I was offering was some actual friendly advice.  Ignore it if you wish. As I just said, I really don't care.  It is all becoming more and more boring and really insignificant to me in the over all scheme of things. really.

 

Best regards

 

As I read through your humor-impaired nitpick, I had to wonder if you are capable of self-reflection in your use, or over use, of the word "boring." LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

You all my love DCPs style.  But it often thwarts what he is trying to accomplish ...

I don't believe you are in a position to judge that.

 

... and paints him out to be mean spirited, which I do not believe is deserved. 

 

By and large, his detractors think ill of him and express it because they don't like being contradicted and shown to be wrong. I daresay their sentiment would be the same whether or not he used amusing style and wit in contradicting them -- so he might as well employ the talents he possesses.

 

I understand his style and to some extent why he does it. 

 

I'm not convinced of that, but that is neither here nor thare.

 

Personally it does not drive me to apoplexy and by your thoughts that it would shows you really don't understand me at all.

I was endeavoring to use hyperbole in a humorous vein; sorry it was lost on you.

 

Really I don't care.  All you self proclaimed defenders can carry on and pat yourselves on the back with they way you approach the gospel and its defense.   You think you are effective?  You really are not.  Yuck it up all you want. 

I can only guess at what you mean by "self-proclaimed defenders," but I can say that over the years, I have derived great benefit from the apologetics of Daniel Peterson and others at FARMS and at the Maxwell Institute as it was formerly constituted, as well as from organizations such as FAIR (now known as FairMormon). It has helped me keep the garden free of noxious weeds, thus permitting my testimony to grow and flourish.

 

I have to believe there are many others like me in that respect.

 

The mantra that such apologetics do more harm than good and drive people away from the Church I see to be merely the expression of wishful thinking from detractors.

 

 

All I was offering was some actual friendly advice.  Ignore it if you wish.

 

And since it was Daniel Peterson whom you were addressing, it is up to him to make that choice. Knowing him, I trust that his choice will be prudent.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Really I don't care. 

Uh, clearly you do..... and apparently very much.  If you don't care, stop posting about it.  You don't like his style.  Good for you. 

[Daniel Peterson]

Really Dr. Peterson don't you tire of this old worn out bad sarcasm and self deprecation? You really need a new style. Take it as friendly advice from someone who really does like you.

 

I find it preferable, on the whole, to observing that the critics who say such things are liars, idiots, and jackasses.

 

However, when I'm in the market for a style consultant, I'll remember that you're available!

[Teancum]

As I read through your humor-impaired nitpick, I had to wonder if you are capable of self-reflection in your use, or over use, of the word "boring." LOL

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Carry on Wade, you think you help your cause. You don't.

But to each their own.

[Teancum]

I find it preferable, on the whole, to observing that the critics who say such things are liars, idiots, and jackasses.

 

However, when I'm in the market for a style consultant, I'll remember that you're available!

That is fine Dr. Peterson. My suggestion was with good intent and without malicious intent though your supporters here seem to take it that way. Take my advice with scorn and with a cynical attitude as it seems you have if you wish. Really as noted, in the overall scheme of things it matters little. I recall am not one of your enemies and I still quite like you.

Best regards

[Teancum]

Uh, clearly you do..... and apparently very much.  If you don't care, stop posting about it.  You don't like his style.  Good for you. 

Actually I really don't care.

But. Am glad you think you are able to read minds.

But if you have not noticed I really don't post much here. It is not very edifying.

[Scott Lloyd]

Carry on Wade, you think you help your cause. You don't.

But to each their own.

OK, if this is going to keep coming up, I can't resist another grammar note.

 

The idiom, properly expressed, is "to each his own," not "to each their own."

 

Think of the popular 1946 song "To Each His Own" written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans and popularized by Eddy Howard, the Ink Spots and Freddy Martin and his Orchestra, among others. Or the movie of that same title released that year.

 

Each is a singular adjective and, as such, takes a singular pronoun such as his or her but not a plural pronoun such as their.

[wenglund]

Carry on Wade, you think you help your cause. You don't.

But to each their own.

 

I am not sure what "cause" you have in mind (I am here to express my point of view and to let people take or leave it as they deem of value), but do I have an interest in pointing out unwitting ironies, and you have been of great help in providing a wealth of material to draw from. [thumbs up]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 12, 2014 by wenglund

[Teancum]

I am not sure what "cause" you have in mind (I am here to express my point of view and let people to take or leave it as they deem of value), but do I have an interest in pointing out unwitting ironies, and you have been of great help in providing a wealth of material to draw from. [thumbs up]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well gee I an happy I made your day. At least I did something to add to someone's happiness today.

[Teancum]

OK, if this is going to keep coming up, I can't resist another grammar note.

 

The idiom, properly expressed, is "to each his own," not "to each their own."

 

Think of the popular 1946 song "To Each His Own" written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans and popularized by Eddy Howard, the Ink Spots and Freddy Martin and his Orchestra, among others. Or the movie of that same title released that year.

 

Each is a singular adjective and, as such, takes a singular pronoun such as his or her but not a plural pronoun such as their.

Why thank you. My writing style needs all the help it can get.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why thank you. My writing style needs all the help it can get.

It's not just you. "To each their own" is becoming a mantra here, today especially.

[Teancum]

It's not just you. "To each their own" is becoming a mantra here, today especially.

Actually I started using it to parody Mr. Wade, I should stop.

[Scott Lloyd]

I find it preferable, on the whole, to observing that the critics who say such things are liars, idiots, and jackasses.

 

However, when I'm in the market for a style consultant, I'll remember that you're available!

I think many would join me in saying in the immortal words of Rodgers and Hart:

 

Don't change a hair for me,

Not if you care for me.

Edited to add:

 

Actually, those would have been the immortal words of Richard Rodgers only. It just occurred to me that Rodgers was the lyricist and Lorenz Hart was the composer.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

Actually I started using it to parody Mr. Wade, I should stop.

 

I am a bit puzzled how it is supposedly a parody to quote someone exactly in their open-minded granting of differing points of view.

 

Even more puzzling is your supposed attempt to parody me after lecturing others on the ineffectiveness of sarcasm. [insert headscratching icon here]

 

Are you the kind of person prone to putting a "kick me" sign on your own back?  

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Teancum]

I am a bit puzzled how it is supposedly a parody to quote someone exactly in their open-minded granting of differing points of view.

 

Even more puzzling is your supposed attempt to parody me after lecturing others on the ineffectiveness of sarcasm. [insert headscratching icon here]

 

Are you the kind of person prone to putting a "kick me" sign on your own back?  

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure Wade. Kick me. Is this what the gospel of Jesus Christ, that you so often talk about, teaches you? I am here to make it a good day for you.

[wenglund]

Sure Wade. Kick me. Is this what the gospel of Jesus Christ, that you so often talk about, teaches you? I am here to make it a good day for you.

 

I am not one for kicking people with "kick me" signs on their back, or otherwise, though because of my belief in Christ, I am inclined to point out when there is a "kick me" sign on people's backs.

 

So, I will have to decline your sadistic invitation. 

 

However, if you really wish to make a good day for me, you might consider ramping down on the blatant hypocrisy. The jester-like value has quickly worn thin.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[escott3564]

Panel discussion on Family Members Who Left is going on now.

Very insightful.

The general consensus seems to be to do what you can to maintain a relationship, even if it means backing off from argumentation.

And, in allusion to a thread about this of some months ago, no, there are no ex-Mormons on the panel. I continue to believe that unnecessary and potentially problematical.

When you have the time, Scott, would you mind opening a separate thread about this panel and report on how it went in more detail?  I would be very interested in this.  Thanks!

[Scott Lloyd]

When you have the time, Scott, would you mind opening a separate thread about this panel and report on how it went in more detail?  I would be very interested in this.  Thanks!

It may be a day or so before I can get to it.

 

And frankly, the panelists were disclosing what was obviously personal and sensitive information, and I'm more than a little hesitant about publicizing it for a wider audience. I'll probably forgo doing a newspaper story on the panel discussion session for that reason. I wouldn't for the world do anything that would jeopardize or harm their family relationships.

 

Edited to add:

 

I might contact Scott Gordon and the folks at FairMormon about it. If FairMormon, with the consent of the panelists, plans to put the proceedings on its website, I would be more comfortable about reporting on it elsewhere.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd