Fairmormon Conference Quotes

[Scott Lloyd]

With this thread, I'm going to carry forward a practice I started last year.

 

As I review my notes, I will present some of my favorite quotes from speakers at the recently concluded FairMormon Conference.

 

I invite others to contribute their own favorite quotes as well. Please, if you can, make them concise and, in the interest of accuracy, make them direct quotations as opposed to paraphrases.

 

Of course anyone is welcome to comment on any of the quotes that are posted -- within the board guidelines, of course.

 

I'll start things off with a quote from Sharon Eubank's address, "This Is a Woman's Church":

 

“I want to go on record from my own experience, and my own experience has been incredibly empowering. The doctrine and practice of the church for me as a woman has given me things that I care more deeply about than anything else in my life.”

 

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

This quote is from Daniel Peterson's address, but Dan was actually quoting someone else, Jeff Lindsay.

 

I've never seen the quote from Lindsay before, but it definitely rings true to my observation of the Church's critics. I've seen this technique repeated time after time, and it definitely makes interacting with the critics frustrating.

 

Linday writes:

 

One of the challenges in defending one's faith is dealing with critics who launch the Big List attack. This entails throwing out dozens of short arguments to create the impression of an overwhelming barrage of logic and facts that decimate the faith in question.

 

The Big List is loaded with barbed questions that weren't written in search of a genuine answer. They are intended to draw blood. If there is a good defense to one, never mind, there are many more to be shot in different directions.

 

... Even for those who are prepared to answer questions on a wide variety of topics, the time it takes to lay a foundation and properly answer a question can be taken by the instantly impatient critics as an admission of weakness and confirmation that they are right, and then it's time to move on to the next attack and the next.

 

If reasonable answers are promptly provided for some attacks, or if the alleged weakness on further examination actually proves to be evidence in favor of the faithful position, the response can be ignored as new attacks from the Big List are hurled out.

 

Here is a link to Jeff Lindsay's on-line article in which he made this comment.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

From Kerry Muehlstein, "The Book of Abraham and Unnoticed Assumptions":

 

Most people made the assumption that Joseph Smith was translating the text next to Facsimile 1 and didn’t ever bother to test it.

 

… There are ways to check this. One of those is to look at contemporary papyri -- papyri that were created about the same time -- and see how often the text is associated with the picture it’s adjacent to. And it turns out it’s around 50 percent of the time.

 

Edited August 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

During Q and A after a presentation, Matt Grow of the Church History Department answered a question about how the closure of the Church archives affects his work. He replied that it is a misconception that the archives are closed.

 

The vast percentage of the things the Church holds are accessible and available to anyone.

 

The archives, like other business or corporate or government or university archives, have specific restrictions on what is not accessible to everyone. Those fall in three categories: the first category is sacred. To us that means things that talk explicitly about the temple rituals are not accessible. The second category is private. Private refers generally to legal situations involving living individuals. The third category is confidential. That refers generally to one of two things. Either the minutes of the presiding quorums of the Church or to disciplinary councils whose records are sealed.

 

What falls outside of those three things, which is the vast percentage of what the church holds, the archives are open. Come down to the Church History Library in Salt Lake City and you’ll find that out.

 

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

My favorite quote from the FAIR conference this year was "All of you are cowards."

[cinepro]

From Kerry Muhlstein, "The Book of Abraham and Unnoticed Assumptions":

 

Did Kerry mention what percentage of ancient papyrus have a text that refers to the illustration accompanying the text without actually being associated with it?

[stemelbow]

Did Kerry mention what percentage of ancient papyrus have a text that refers to the illustration accompanying the text without actually being associated with it?

Well he's Desnews saying he did:

He said a study was conducted on other ancient Egyptian texts, and found that text is only associated with its adjacent picture 53 percent of the time. Thus, it is likely that Joseph Smith was not translating the text next to the picture after all, and his translation cannot be disproven.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865608559/BYU-professor-speaks-on-unnoticed-assumptions-about-the-Book-of-Abraham.html?pg=all

[Scott Lloyd]

Did Kerry mention what percentage of ancient papyrus have a text that refers to the illustration accompanying the text without actually being associated with it?

He talked about the reference to the illustration. Abraham 1:12 refers to "the representation at the commencement of this record." It does not say the representation is adjacent to the text.

 

But it's not my purpose here to summarize the talks, only to provide brief, direct quotations.

 

It has been the practice of FairMormon to put verbatim transcripts on its website, and I'm guessing they'll do that with his presentation as well.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

My favorite quote from the FAIR conference this year was "All of you are cowards."

Please don't derail.

[stemelbow]

Please don't derail.

That was an alleged quote. Why can't that be his favorite quote?

 

You are out of the thread.

[Bob Crockett]

During Q and A after a presentation, Matt Grow of the Church History Department answered a question about how the closure of the Church archives affects his work. He replied that it is a misconception that the archives are closed.

There are also donor restrictions at the Church Archives.  Some donors refuse public access to donated materials, or put conditions on them, such as date restrictions.

[mfbukowski]

Did Kerry mention what percentage of ancient papyrus have a text that refers to the illustration accompanying the text without actually being associated with it?

As I recall the point he made was that, even as today, the text may be adjacent to an illustration which actually illustrates something on another page of the text.

 

This was not a huge point- it was more just a comment.  If you read something like Scientific American or National Geographic, the point becomes obvious.  The text is not always next to the plate upon which it is commenting.

[cinepro]

As I recall the point he made was that, even as today, the text may be adjacent to an illustration which actually illustrates something on another page of the text.

 

This was not a huge point- it was more just a comment.  If you read something like Scientific American or National Geographic, the point becomes obvious.  The text is not always next to the plate upon which it is commenting.

 

Obviously.  But if you're reading an article in Scientific American or National Geographic and it says "see figure 1", then a reader may not be faulted in the assumption that figure 1 has something to do with the text.

 

And then if the caption of figure 1 explicitly describes the contents of the figure as being directly related to that specific part of the article, the reader may further not be faulted for assuming it's related. 

 

Seriously, verse 13 describes the altar and names the gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and "also a god like unto that of Pharaoh", and then Joseph Smith identified items 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in facsimile 1 as being Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash and Pharaoh!    

 

If this is the current standard for BoA apologetics, then I've got really bad news.

Edited August 12, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

That was an alleged quote. Why can't that be his favorite quote?

The opening post specified "favorite quotes from speakers at the recently concluded FairMormon Conference" (emphasis added), meaning scheduled presenters at the conference.

 

Do not derail my thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

More from Sharon Eubank:

 

If you take away the restored truth and all of the echoes that exist in different places, ... the world doesn’t have very much else to offer that is going to be useful or helpful or empowering or healthy to a woman.

 

Mostly they try to devalue these roles and say that other things are important, but everything they bring up doesn’t last past this life. So I’ve got to tell you that doesn’t have very much staying power for me. And I find it a little bit ironic that the world is trying to instruct the poor LDS women who are so oppressed and in the backwater that if they could only come out into enlightenment. ... I just don’t see where that enlightenment is.

 

[mfbukowski]

Obviously.  But if you're reading an article in Scientific American or National Geographic and it says "see figure 1", then a reader may not be faulted in the assumption that figure 1 has something to do with the text.

 

And then if the caption of figure 1 explicitly describes the contents of the figure as being directly related to that specific part of the article, the reader may further not be faulted for assuming it's related. 

 

Seriously, verse 13 describes the altar and names the gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and "also a god like unto that of Pharaoh", and then Joseph Smith identified items 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in facsimile 1 as being Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash and Pharaoh!  

 

If this is the current standard for BoA apologetics, then I've got really bad news.

I am so glad that you noticed that the Book of Abraham was originally published in the National Geographic.

 

Of course you and those who gave you rep points for your brilliant treatise clearly see to the core of the issue, acknowledging that there are no differences between contemporary cultural publishing standards and ancient Egyptian papyri.

 

I think you have just revolutionized Book of Abraham scholarship!  Congratulations!!

 

Clearly they still use the same style guides even.  

 

I don't know what was wrong with those scribes.  They didn't even post anything on youtube.

 

I apologize for the derail.  I didn't know anyone would make such an earth-shattering discovery right here on this thread.

Edited August 12, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

deleted became info may be wrong...

Edited August 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[morgan.deane]

I couldn't make it this year or stream the conference, but I was very interested in Smith's piece on the BoM. Does anybody know where I can find at least a summary of it? And so I don't derail the thread,  did anybody have some good quotes from it?

[Calm]

Info was right so here is the link again, the Sharon Eubank video will be embedded shortly if it isn't already:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/womans-church

 

Video is well worth watching even if you are a transcript person like I am.  She is a very dynamic speaker, seeing her speak adds meaning for me.

[Calm]

I couldn't make it this year or stream the conference, but I was very interested in Smith's piece on the BoM. Does anybody know where I can find at least a summary of it? And so I don't derail the thread,  did anybody have some good quotes from it?

Hopefully he will see the thread and make contact...

[cinepro]

I am so glad that you noticed that the Book of Abraham was originally published in the National Geographic.

 

Of course you and those who gave you rep points for your brilliant treatise clearly see to the core of the issue, acknowledging that there are no differences between contemporary cultural publishing standards and ancient Egyptian papyri.

 

I think you have just revolutionized Book of Abraham scholarship!  Congratulations!!

 

Clearly they still use the same style guides even.  

 

I don't know what was wrong with those scribes.  They didn't even post anything on youtube.

 

I apologize for the derail.  I didn't know anyone would make such an earth-shattering discovery right here on this thread.

 

If I recall, you were the one who introduced the analogy to modern publications (see: post #12), so I'm not sure who your comment is aimed at.

 

Even absent the analogy, the point still stands.  The text of the Book of Abraham refers to Facsimile 1 by mentioning specific elements of the illustration, and Joseph Smith identified those specific elements in the illustration itself. 

 

If someone wants to argue that Facsimile 1 isn't directly related to Chapter 1, they have to account for Joseph's explanation of the picture, as well as its presence in our scriptures (as well as theorizing that there was another illustration somewhere else in the scroll that showed the same thing as Facsimile 1?)

 

Apologists might not like having to account for Facsimile 1, but the implications of Kerry's quote in post #3 are far, far worse.

Edited August 13, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

If I recall, you were the one who introduced the analogy to modern publications (see: post #12), so I'm not sure who your comment is aimed at.

 

Even absent the analogy, the point still stands.  The text of the Book of Abraham refers to Facsimile 1 by mentioning specific elements of the illustration, and Joseph Smith identified those specific elements in the illustration itself. 

 

If someone wants to argue that Facsimile 1 isn't directly related to Chapter 1, they have to account for Joseph's explanation of the picture, as well as its presence in our scriptures (as well as theorizing that there was another illustration somewhere else in the scroll that showed the same thing as Facsimile 1?)

 

Apologists might not like having to account for Facsimile 1, but the implications of Kerry's quote in post #3 are far, far worse.

I don't think you get my point, probably because you are too eager to jump to conclusions based on the brief quote I provided.

 

Here's what I posted later:

 

He talked about the reference to the illustration. Abraham 1:12 refers to "the representation at the commencement of this record." It does not say the representation is adjacent to the text.

 

 

We don't know what else was on the papyrus, because most of it was destroyed. The text corresponding to the picture could have been somewhat removed from it on the papyrus and still have referred to "the representation at the commencement of this record." In fact, the wording indicates the picture was somewhat removed from the text, not adjacent to it. You don't refer to something as being "at the commencement of this record" when it is immediately adjacent to what you are writing.You say "the picture above" or "below" or "at right" or "at left."

 

Rather than merely sticking your fingers in your ears and humming while dismissing Muhlsteins comments, I suggest you read the text of his presentation when it is available.

[Wiki Wonka]

If I recall, you were the one who introduced the analogy to modern publications (see: post #12), so I'm not sure who your comment is aimed at.

 

Even absent the analogy, the point still stands.  The text of the Book of Abraham refers to Facsimile 1 by mentioning specific elements of the illustration, and Joseph Smith identified those specific elements in the illustration itself. 

 

If someone wants to argue that Facsimile 1 isn't directly related to Chapter 1, they have to account for Joseph's explanation of the picture, as well as its presence in our scriptures (as well as theorizing that there was another illustration somewhere else in the scroll that showed the same thing as Facsimile 1?)

 

Apologists might not like having to account for Facsimile 1, but the implications of Kerry's quote in post #3 are far, far worse.

 

I apologize for thread-jacking this thread-jack (as you will recall, this is a thread whose purpose is to list interesting FairMormon Conference quotes), but the other FairMormon Conference thread was locked by the moderators.

 

I just wanted to say that the full transcription of the FairMormon panel on family members who left will be posted on the FairMormon web site, as soon as we can get it through the transcription queue. The panel members have agreed to this.

 

As you were....

 

WW

[Wiki Wonka]

One of my favorite quotes from Dan Peterson's talk. He was responding to a claim in the Letter to a CES Director: "“The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon Witnesses as empirical, rational, nineteenth-century men instead of the nineteenth-century magical-thinking superstitious and treasure-digging men they were.” Dan quoted something that he had written before the CES Letter ever existed, but it addressed this issue perfectly:

 

It seems implausible to assume that the witnesses, early nineteenth-century farmers who spent their lives rising at sunrise, pulling up stumps, clearing rocks, plowing fields, sowing seeds, carefully nurturing crops, herding livestock, milking cows, digging wells, building cabins, raising barns, harvesting food, bartering, in an often cashless economy, for what they could not produce themselves, wearing clothes made from plant fibers and skins, anxiously watching the seasons, and walking or riding animals out under the weather until they retired to their beds shortly after sunset in “a world lit only by fire,” that they were estranged from everyday reality.

 

It’s especially unbelievable when the claim is made by people whose lives, like mine, consist to a large extent of staring at digital screens in artificially air-conditioned and artificially lit homes and offices, clothed in synthetic fibers, commuting between the two in enclosed and air-conditioned mechanical vehicles while they listen to the radio, chat on their cell phones, and fiddle with their iPods, whose inner workings are largely mysterious to them, who buy their prepackaged food (with little or no regard for the time or the season) by means of plastic cards and electronic financial transfers from artificially illuminated and air-conditioned supermarkets enmeshed in international distribution networks of which they know virtually nothing, the rhythms of whose daily lives are largely unaffected by the rising and setting of the sun. Somehow the current generation seems ill-positioned to accuse the witnesses’ generation of being out of touch with reality.

 

Edited August 14, 2014 by Wiki Wonka

[cinepro]

One of my favorite quotes from Dan Peterson's talk. He was responding to a claim in the Letter to a CES Director: "“The mistake that is made by 21st century Mormons is that they’re seeing the Book of Mormon Witnesses as empirical, rational, nineteenth-century men instead of the nineteenth-century magical-thinking superstitious and treasure-digging men they were.” Dan quoted something that he had written before the CES Letter ever existed, but it addressed this issue perfectly:

 

I like the eloquence of Dan's response, but if being a pre-technology farmer lent someone wisdom and discernment in such things, then the history of the human race (which has consisted of such people for the majority of its existence) would be very, very different!

 

But this isn't a difficult theory to test.  The Church own a set of fake plates (several, I would guess).  They simply need to select a group of random farmers around the world and take the plates to them and allow them to examine them, and then see how many can figure out that they are fake plates.  It would be even better to take a set of authentic ancient metal plates, and then create a fake set of those, and present both to the farmers to see if they can identify the fakes more than 50% of the time.

 

Some might argue that such a test has already been performed with the Kinderhook Plates, but I'd like to see another one...

Edited August 14, 2014 by cinepro